•YAiLE-wapfEKSinnf-

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
of the
HENRY HOMES FUND

PROPHECY AND AUTHORITY

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
HEW YORK • BOSTON - CHICAGO * DALLAS
ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., Limited
LONDON • BOMBAY - CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.
TORONTO

PROPHECY
AND AUTHORITY A STUDY
IN THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE
AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE

BY

KEMPER FULLERTON, M.A.
Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature,
Oberlin Graduate School of Theology

jfteto gotfe
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1919
All rights reserved

OOPTBIGHT, 1919
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

Set up and electrotyped. Published, March, 1919

TO
THE MEMORY OF
MY FATHER and MY MOTHER
Iste Deus meus et glorijicabo eum
Deus Patris mei et exaltabo eum
Ex. 15:2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My thanks are due to the Editors of the 'American
Journal of Theology for their kind permission to use the
material of an article by me on " The Reformation Prin
ciple of Exegesis and the Interpretation of Prophecy "
which appeared in the issue of July, 1908. I wish also
to express my thanks for the helpful criticisms and sug
gestions of my colleagues and friends, Professor William
J. Hutchins, Professor Eugene W. Lyman, and Pro
fessor Charles H. A. Wager. To Professor Wager are
due my special thanks for the generous assistance he has
given me in connection with the progress of my book
through the press. Without his help, the imperfections
of my work, of which I am only too painfully conscious,
would have been even more numerous than they are.

Vll

INTRODUCTORY
The following study has grown out of investigations
undertaken some years ago which were designed to form
part of a more general work on the History of Biblical
Interpretation. But for various reasons it has been
found impossible to carry out the original intention. I
have therefore determined to publish this section on the
Interpretation of Prophecy separately, as I venture to
hope that it will meet a need of the present hour. I am
quite well aware that there is little demand in these days
for works which, on their surface, seem to have only an
historical interest. The historical is, unfortunately, apt
to be identified with the academic and scholastic, and
nothing is tolerated by the reading public which does
not have a direct bearing upon the all-engrossing subject
of the War. This is natural but it is foolish. A too in
tense preoccupation with the present is apt to miss its
real meaning. There never was a time when historical
perspectives were more necessary in order to furnish
true insights into the darkness of the present. The ap
proach to contemporary problems through history is the
only way in which we can hope to secure ourselves from
judgments of passion and prejudice. Therefore I make
no apology for the purely historical form in which the
present argument is cast, even though it traces move
ments of thought which in themselves seem often remote
from the thoughts and feelings of the hour. The fact
that this study was begun and its general conclusions
were arrived at when their application to such a

X INTRODUCTORY
catastrophe as has overtaken civilization was still un
dreamed of should be regarded as a recommendation
rather than a hindrance to its publication. But what has
it to do with the present? Directly but little, indirectly
much. At the present time we are witnessing a remarkable
recrudescence of the Millennial hope. This hope has
burned most brightly at times of great social and political
unrest. There have always been many earnest Christians
who, oppressed by the apparently insurmountable evils
that surrounded them, have been accustomed to look for
a sudden and miraculous interposition in their favor;
the deliverance which could not be accomplished through
any human endeavor must be effected, as they supposed,
by the Lord from heaven. What has occurred in the
past is occurring again before our eyes. In the face of
the awful facts of the present, to which a civilization
hardened in materialism finds it difficult to adjust itself,
morbidness and hysteria, both in thought and action, are
in danger of taking the place of the spiritual obtuseness
and superficial shrewdness of the decades just preceding
1914. A universal nervousness has seized society.
Panic is spreading among the peoples. In the religious
sphere one manifestation of this is the greatly quickened
expectation of the speedy coming of the Lord. The
interpreters of prcphecy are busy with the signs of the
times and the calculators claim that they have found at
last the key to the Seventy Weeks, the " times, time and
a half-time," and the number of the beast.
In a comment upon the twentieth chapter of the Reve
lation Augustine once said : " It would take a long time
to refute the various interpretations of it point by point;
but we should rather show how this Scripture is to be

INTRODUCTORY XI
accepted." What he says of the Revelation may be said of
prophecy generally. To disprove the various theories of
Millennialists from Papias to Pastor Russell would, in
deed, be a laborious and a thankless task. To attempt
to show that the principles which underlie the millennialist
interpretation of prophecy must be abandoned, and that
an entirely new view of prophecy is to be adopted, is a
much more expeditious and effective method of refutation
and is one of the aims of this volume. It is this aim
which is directly connected with a present-day issue.
But this aim is a minor one, as the issue itself is of sub
ordinate interest. What it is hoped may be accomplished
indirectly by the discussion is of far greater importance.
If my purpose were simply to attempt to dispose of the
Millennial hope, the length and method of the argument
would be out of all proportion to its conclusion. The
framework would be too large for the picture. But in
the method of argument which has been chosen some
thing far more vital is involved than any incidental de
duction which may be drawn from it with regard to
Millennialist claims. The question of the attitude of the
Protestant Churches toward the Scriptures as a principle
of authority has been reopened. But it may be objected
that nothing could be more inopportune than to renew
inspiration controversies at such a time as this, that these
controversies have happily died down and are remote
from the issues of the present. Will it not be likely to
inject again the odium theologicum into a world whose
cup is already full of bitterness?
On the contrary, it was never more necessary than now
to call attention to a controversy which has often been
hotly debated but which has been left unsettled. That
the inspiration controversies of the last quarter of a

Xll INTRODUCTORY
century left the Churches just about where they were
before is clear from the fact that Millennialist theories
have made such rapid progress in the last four years,
not only among the laity but among the clergy also, for
these theories, as we shall see, are based upon the premise
of an infallible Scripture. After all, it is not so easy as
is often supposed for the Churches to throw off the habits
and prepossessions of two thousand years, especially
those prepossessions which are also connected in a very
special way with the birth-struggles of Protestantism.
And this is not to be altogether deplored. A too ready
acquiescence on the part of the Churches in new modes of
thought is not to be desired. The conservatism of the
Christian religion in its organized forms is not to be
deprecated, even though the manifestations in which its
conservatism incidentally finds expression may often be
unfortunate. Conservatism serves a useful purpose; it
preserves historical continuity and the possibilities of
organic growth. Let the inherent radicalism of
Christianity in the form of individual experience do its
work, and let the conservatism of Christianity in the
form of ecclesiastical organization do its work, and in
the end a proper balance will be struck between them.
But at this time we are in one of those crises of history
when choices must be made along every line of momen
tous import for civilization. Such times demand an even
more earnest effort than usual to face the facts of life
and to express our reactions upon them with sincerity.
War deals only with realities and we are in an era of
war. Therefore, though one can understand the con
servatism of the Church and can sympathize with it, the
duty of the individual scholar to leave it undisturbed by
no means follows.

INTRODUCTORY Xlll
Now the settlement of the question of the Bible, its
nature and authority, is of fundamental importance to
the life and effective work of the Protestant Churches.
It was by means of the Bible that these Churches fought
their revolutionary war against Rome and won their in
dependence, and the Bible has been the source from which
they have drawn their inspiration ever since. But there
are many indications that the attitude of the Churches
toward this principium of their ecclesiastical life is
confused, irresolute. The explanation of this is simple
enough. When the Bible was made the sword of the
Protestant spirit with which to do battle with Rome, it
was unfortunately sharpened on polemical grindstones
and given an edge that might serve against the mediaeval
armor of Catholicism but was easily blunted under the
conditions of modern warfare. When the theory of
Scripture which was hammered out in the post-Reforma
tion period became subjected to the newly awakened
historical criticism, which flourished more especially in
Protestant countries themselves, it failed to meet the
test. But the Protestant Churches have not as yet
definitely accepted the results of the historical criticism
of the Bible or the changed views of its authority which
they necessitate. Until this is done these Churches will
be unprepared to face in a calm, steady and intelligent
way the issues of the present war. If the Bible occupies
as fundamental a position in Protestantism as is com
monly supposed, uncertainty as to its nature and authority
can affect the development of Protestantism only un
favorably. But the preservation of the rigidly dogmatic
view of the Bible which modern Protestantism has in
herited from the past has become impossible. The facts
of science and history conflict with it at every turn.

xiv INTRODUCTORY
The attempt of the Protestant Churches to adhere to the
dogmatic view of Scripture and at the same time to ap
propriate the results of modern research in every other
field creates a dualism in their intellectual life which in
the end must be fatal to their spiritual life and to any
fruitful activity. Only when the head and the heart
cooperate sincerely can there be security and joy in re
ligious experience. The conviction which prompts to the
publication of this volume is that Protestantism must
come to terms with itself as to its own principium and
frankly adopt the results of modern biblical scholarship,
if it is to meet the great needs of the times effectively.
It is at this point that these studies have very much to
do with the war though in an indirect way. May I try,
briefly, to make clear how this is so.
There are three lines along which the war is affecting
subtly but profoundly our religious thinking; these are
in the direction of simplicity, reality and unity, (i)
The religion of the camps and the trenches demands a
simplification in religion. To simplify religion does not
mean to devitalize it by rationalizing it, but to intensify
and spiritualize it. To simplify the Christian religion in
its present developed form is to attempt to do for it what
Jesus did for Judaism, and who will affirm that the
simplification which Jesus effected weakened religion?
The simplification of religion which is intended in this
connection does not imply the banishment of mystery,
which calls for the two supreme religious acts of faith
and worship. So long as we refuse to accept the
mechanistic theory of the universe, we must admit
mystery, the existence of something that goes beyond the
world of our senses, and the correlative obligation to faith
and worship. Coleridge once said : " In wonder all

INTRODUCTORY XV
philosophy began ; in wonder it ends ; and admiration fills
up the interspace. But the first wonder is the offspring
of ignorance, the last is the parent of adoration. The
first is the birth-throe of knowledge, the last is its
euthanasy and apotheosis." If the simplification of re
ligion meant the elimination of mystery, it would mean
the death and not the transfiguration of religion. What
is meant by the simplification of religion is the elimina
tion of the dogmatic element in it which has contributed
to an immeasurable complication of religion. Dogma
has had three special manifestations: a dogmatic view of
the Church, a dogmatic view of the creeds and a dogmatic
view of Scripture. In their rejection of sacerdotalism
and the episcopal succession as embodying a doctrinal
truth, and not only an historical fact, the most of the
Protestant Churches abandoned the dogmatic view of the
Church and in principle also the dogmatic view of the
creeds. The latter are authoritative not because the
Church formulated them but only in so far as they em
body the teachings of Scripture. But the Protestant
Churches have retained the dogmatic view of Scripture
and with it the premise for a complicated interpretation
of the Christian religion. The historical view of
Scripture inevitably leads to the abandonment of the
complex constructions of dogma; it leads to simplicity.
(2) It leads also to reality in religion. The men who
are fighting this war are face to face with realities,
realities of the sternest and most uncompromising sort.
They will not be contented with artificiality in religion,
nor will the world at large, which is to be influenced by the
thought and feeling of the vast home-returning armies
for many years to come. Now the premise of a dogmatic
theory of Scripture is an unproved premise. Nor has

XVI INTRODUCTORY
it the quality of an axiom as has often been imagined.
The Testimonium Spiritus Sancti, which is supposed to
apply at this point, may apply to the religious content of
Scripture, but it certainly cannot apply to Scripture as a
whole. On the contrary this premise can be historically
disproved. To adopt it is therefore to inject at once
an element of unreality into our religion. The historical
appreciation of the Bible obviates this fatal defect. It
reconciles the processes of religious research in particular
with scientific research generally and thus integrates our
religious views with the whole world of human thought
and experience. It enables us to reestablish the unity of
brain and heart which the old dogmatic theory of
Scripture endangered. But only when the unfortunate
dualism between the Church's inherited theories of
Scripture and the modern knowledge of the world which
it has accepted is dissipated, can it hope to speak in a
way to command the attention of a world disciplined
to realities by war. (3) There is a third great religious
need at the present time, the need of unity. Can the
men of our armies who have been accustomed to the
necessity and the inspiration of united effort tolerate any
longer the denominationalism which has thus far de
stroyed the unity of Protestantism? Can this vulgar
modern counterpart to the tribalism in religion of earlier
ages be suffered to continue? Now the premise of de
nominationalism is the dogmatic view of Scripture. On
the dogmatic view, it was very natural to find inspired
justification for this or that polity or mode of wor
ship. The succession of bishops, the particular mode of
baptism, the philosophic conception of determinism ex
pressed religiously in the doctrine of election and repro
bation, the local autonomy of the churches, the belief that

INTRODUCTORY XVII
the Bible renders all creeds superfluous — itself erected
into a creed — all these forms of ecclesiasticism and
many others have sought the dogmatic sanction of
Scripture ; the unhappy divisions among Protestants have
been stiffened into fixed and rigid barriers through the
use of the dogmatic mortar of Scriptural authority. Of
course it is not to be imagined for a moment that all men
are to worship in the same way or to think exactly the
same thoughts about God; but the historical interpreta
tion of the Bible will effectually prevent the imputation
of divine authority to our personal preferences in ec
clesiastical organization or theological thinking. Now it
is the denominationalism which is fortified by a dog
matic view of Scripture that is checking our religious
life at every turn. It is this denominationalism which
more than anything else will prevent the Protestant
Churches from making the contribution which they ought
to make to the new world-order, to the endeavor to keep
the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace. And the
necessary preliminary to the abandonment of denomina
tionalism in its doctrinal and injurious form is the
abandonment of the dogma of Scriptural infallibility.
For these reasons, it has been deemed timely to present
this volume to the public. A word must be said to justify
the method by which it is hoped to secure the aims in
view. The subject chosen is a study of the problem of
Predictive Messianic Prophecy as that is revealed in the
history of biblical interpretation. The connection of the
Millennial Hope with the theory of Predictive Prophecy
is of course self-evident. The two stand or fall together.
The connection of Predictive Prophecy and the Problem
of Authority is also immediate. If there is no such thing
as Predictive Messianic Prophecy in the usually accepted

XV111 INTRODUCTORY
sense of the term, the dogmatic theory of the infallibility
of Scripture must be discarded. It is this conclusion
which is likely to meet with the most opposition. I have
therefore attempted to lead up to it in a way that has
not ordinarily been followed, through a study of the con
nection between the problem of predictive prophecy and
the principles of biblical interpretation. The present
essay seeks to show that the fact of predictive prophecy
has been maintained only by means of a false principle
of exegesis, that when a scientific principle of exegesis
is adopted the theory of predictive prophecy must be
abandoned, and that the scientific principle of exegesis
has been formally and finally adopted by the Protestant
Churches because of a great religious need and in a pro
foundly religious interest. By this method of approach
it is hoped that both the inevitableness and desirability
of the conclusion will be made apparent.
May I add one final word of personal confession. I
am aware that the views here expressed differ in form
from the views of those to whom this essay is dedicated.
But it is because I believe so firmly that there is a
Faith beyond the forms of faith
and that it is this inner faith alone which truly unites
the living with the living and with those whom we
wrongly call the dead that I have dared to inscribe this
first book of mine to the cherished memory of my Father
and my Mother.
The Oberlin Graduate School
of Theology.
June 25, 1918.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY PAGE
The Aims, Timeliness, and Methods of the Following Study ix
PART I
THE PATRISTIC PERIOD
CHAPTER I
The Extent and Importance of the Patristic Argument
from Prophecy  3
I In the Controversy with the Jews  3
II In the Controversy with the Gentiles (the Greek
Apologists)  5
A The Problem of the Ceremonial and Prophecy
B The Problem of the Recent Origin of Christianity
and Prophecy
C The Problem of the Person of Christ and Prophecy
III In the Controversy .with the Gnostics and Marcion
(the Old-Catholic Fathers)  22
A The Peculiar Tenets of the Gnostics and Marcion
B The Argument from Prophecy in the Old-Catholic
Fathers
C Summary of Results CHAPTER II
The Predominance of the Predictive Element in the Pa
tristic Argument from Prophecy  40
I The Principles of the Argument  40
II Illustrations of the Argument  43
CHAPTER III
The Exegetical Method in the Patristic Argument from
Prophecy: The Allegory  51
I The Principles of the Allegory  52
II The Allegory in the Jewish Interpretation of the
Old Testament  56

CONTENTS PAGE
III The Allegory in the Greek Interpretation of Homer 59
IV The Patristic Justification of the Allegory ... 66
CHAPTER IV
The Allegorical Method of Exegesis and the Uncertainty
of Interpretation  71
I The " Enigma " Theory of Prophecy  71
II The Obscurity of Scripture  75
CHAPTER V
The Church as the Authoritative Interpreter of Scripture 82
I The Conceptions of Tradition and the Problems of
Canon and Interpretation  82
II The Unwritten Tradition and the Creed .... 85
III The Preservation of the Unwritten Tradition in the
Historic Episcopate. The Bishop as Inter
preter   91
IV The Bishop as Priest  96
V The Ecumenical Creeds and the Pope as the Norms
of Interpretation  97
VI Summary of Results : Subjection of Scripture to
the Authority of the Church as Interpreter 102
PART II
THE MODERN PERIOD
CHAPTER VI
The Sole Authority of Scripture and the Reformation Prin
ciple of Exegesis : Luther  109
I Outline of the Subsequent Argument  109
II The Theories of Authority and Interpretation in
Luther's Day  ill
III Luther's Enunciation of the Reformation Principle
of Exegesis (the One Grammatico-Historical
Sense) in the Interest of the Sole Authority
of Scripture  113
IV Qualification of the Reformation Principle of Ex
egesis by Luther's Christo-Centric Theory of
Scripture  119
V Theoretical Effect of the Reformation Principle of
Exegesis Upon the Argument from Prophecy.
Illustrations  122
VI Summary of Results  .130

CONTENTS
CHAPTER VII page
The Reformation Principle of Exegesis and the Initial
Breakdown of the Theory of Predictive
Prophecy : Calvin  133
I Calvin's Reformation Principle of Exegesis and His
Historical Interpretation  133
II Calvin's Dogmatic Theory of Scripture and His Ty
pology  136
III The Triumph of the Reformation Principle of Ex
egesis over the Dogmatic Theory of Scrip
ture in Calvin's Exegesis. Illustrations
from Law, Morals and Prophecy  139
IV Distinction between Calvin the Exegete and Calvin
the Theologian. Summary of Results . . 159
CHAPTER VIII
The Conflict between the Reformation Principle of Ex
egesis and the Post-Reformation Doctrine of
Scripture and the Consequences for the In
terpretation of Prophecy  165
I The Post-Reformation Doctrine of Scripture . . . 165
II Consequences of the Post-Reformation Doctrine of
Scripture for Interpretation . . ... 171
A Incorrect Application to Prophecy of the Principle
that Scripture is to be Interpreted by Scripture
B Surrender of the Grammatico-Historical Sense
C Abandonment of Calvin's Exegetical Results
D The Alternative : Dogma or Exegesis ?
CHAPTER IX
The Choice of the Alternative, and Final Conclusions . . 186
I Disintegration of the Doctrine of Scriptural Infalli
bility  186
II Resolution of the Reformation Principle of Exegesis
into a Purely Historical Principle of Re
search and the Final Breakdown of the The
ory of Predictive Prophecy  188
III Consequences  189
A Changes in the Theory of Inspiration and Infalli
bility
B Changes in the Theory of Jesus' Relationship to
Prophecy
C Changes in the Theory of the Supernatural
D Changes in the Doctrine of the Millennial Hope

PART I
THE PATRISTIC PERIOD

PROPHECY AND AUTHORITY

CHAPTER I
THE EXTENT AND IMPORTANCE OF THE PATRISTIC
ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY
The apologetic of the Primitive Church had its char
acter determined, as any effective apologetic must be de
termined, by the difficulties which were presented to be
lievers as children of the age in which they lived and by
the character of the attack from without which they were
compelled to meet.

It might naturally be supposed that the anti-Jewish
polemic would be found to control the character of the
earliest Christian writings. The first thing the Church
did was to differentiate itself from Judaism. " Chris
tianity did not believe in Judaism but Judaism in Chris
tianity," says Ignatius. The Christian Church sprang
from the Jewish Church. It made the distinct claim that
its founder, Jesus, was the Messiah promised in the Old
Testament Scriptures. Yet the Gentile Christians in the
name of Jesus discarded the Jewish ceremonial system
commanded in those Scriptures, and, as a world religion,
Christianity asserted its independence of all nationalistic
limitations. " It is absurd," says Ignatius again, " to
profess Christianity and to Judaize." The Jew naturally
3

4 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
regarded the Christian as a bastard and no true son of
Abraham. He denied that the Nazarene who had laid
down the principles which logically led to the abrogation
of the law and to the denationalization of the Mosaic re
ligion could possibly be the Messiah promised in the
law. Was Jesus the Messiah? This question was the
crucial question between Jew and Christian whenever the
two parties joined in debate. The anti- Jewish polemic
would therefore be naturally summed up in the argu
ment from prophecy. Did Jesus fulfil the predictions of
the Messiah in the Old Testament?
But the importance of the debate between Jew and
Christian and its influence upon early Christian literature
must not be unduly emphasized. The anti-Jewish po
lemic, that is, the attempt to meet the arguments actu
ally advanced by Jews themselves against Christianity,
appears to have soon become polemic only in name.
With the transfer of Christianity to Gentile territory and
the separation of the Church from the Synagogue, ef
fected by Paul, the prick of Jewish opposition ceased to
be so acutely felt. While Paul himself was engaged in
a warfare with the Jews of the most vital kind and while
the author of the Gospel of Matthew conducts his argu
ment from prophecy with an actual Jewish audience in
mind, when we come to the post-apostolic period and more
particularly to the writings of the Apologists, it is more
than doubtful if we have the right to speak of an anti-
Jewish polemic in the strict sense of the term. A work
like the Dialogue with Trypho, it is true, is nominally
directed against the Jews, but, as a recent investigator
points out, the anti-Jewish arguments in this and similar,
works are opposed not so much to what the Jews actually
said, as to what the Christians thought they might say.

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GENTILES 5
The Jew in these writings is " the Jew as the Christian
imagined him ; but the Jew as the Christian imagined him
was the heathen, the heathen, moreover, who is willing to
accept the Gospel but at the same time stumbles at it."
The anti-Jewish polemic thus turns out to be a Gentile
apologetic, in other words, an attempt to meet the diffi
culties which intelligent Gentiles themselves found in the
way of accepting Christianity. What were some of these
difficulties? A glance at the Greek Apologists will fur
nish an answer to this question. II
An intelligent Gentile, especially if he were at all
trained in the philosophy of the times, would find three
main difficulties in Christianity. These were: the cere
monial system of the Old Testament, the recent origin of
Christianity, and the person of Christ. It will be neces
sary to elaborate each of these points at some length.
While the Church had differentiated itself from Juda
ism it had retained the Scriptures of Judaism. This
singular fact, though ultimately of inestimable value to
Christianity in that it has enabled it to connect itself
organically with history rather than with philosophy, has
placed it at times at a serious tactical disadvantage. At
no point has this been more evident than in the matter
of the ceremonial. The Jew was not slow to point out
the inconsistency of retaining the Old Testament as the
Christian Scriptures and rejecting the ceremonial system,
" the commands of God," which made up so large a part
of these Scriptures. But even without this Jewish taunt
the problem was sufficiently serious for the Christian.
How could his non-ceremonial religion be vindicated out

O PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
of a ceremonial Scripture? The difficulty was further
aggravated by philosophical considerations. To one
who entertained the Platonic and transcendental view
of God a ceremonial system was positively absurd.
Thus the earliest of the Apologists, Aristides, defines God
as one " who is without beginning and without end, im
mortal, and self-sufficing, above all passions and infirmi
ties," and draws the conclusion from this that " he re
quires no sacrifice and libation, nor any of the things
that appear to sense." The Apologists, it is true, in re
jecting the ceremonial system on the basis of their con
ception of God, are usually arguing against the heathen
ceremonial, but their principles logically involve a re
pudiation of the Jewish ceremonial as well, and accord
ingly we find the author of the Epistle to Diognetus
characterizing the Jewish ceremonial as a " supersti
tion utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice." But
what was to be done with this obstreperous mass of cere
monial material, so uncongenial alike to Christian prin
ciples and philosophic ideas of God and yet contained
in the Christian's own Scriptures? Three ways were
adopted to meet this difficulty. The Apologists in gen
eral simply ignored the ceremonial and laid all the
emphasis upon the prophetic side of the religion of the
Old Testament. The prophets were looked upon as the
inspired teachers of morals and righteousness. " God,"
says Theophilus, " gave a law and sent holy prophets to
teach the race of men that each one of us might under
stand that there is one God, and they taught us to refrain
from idolatry, adultery and murder." From this point
of view the prophets are utilized as teachers of Christian
morals and of a spiritual, non-ceremonial religion. But

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GENTILES 7
this method is an avoidance of the difficulty, not its solu
tion. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas adopts a much
bolder course. While this epistle is, properly speaking,
didactic rather than apologetic, yet its attitude toward
the ceremonial is very instructive. According to the
very radical view of the author the ceremonial system
was not simply abrogated in the new dispensation ; it was
never intended to be construed literally. Moses spoke
" in the spirit " with regard to the food laws, for
example. The observance of the letter was due to an
evil angel, and those passages in the Old Testament,
especially in the Prophets, which repudiated the cere
monial, are cited in proof of the fact that it could have
only a symbolic significance. Thus the ceremonial was
subsumed by Barnabas under prophecy in the sense that
by its symbolism it was supposed to inculcate prophetic
morality. But the ceremonial was also regarded by
Barnabas as prophetic in a more specific sense. It was
not only a type of prophetic ethics; it was a type of the
Messiah, though Barnabas used his typology not so much
to prove the Messiahship of Jesus as for purposes of
edification to the Christian believer. This absolute
denial that the letter of the ceremonial ever had any
validity might satisfy the devout, but it was too obviously
untenable to be urged in debate. In Justin we meet with
the first serious attempt outside the canonical writings
to solve the problem.
In the Apology he adopts the same attitude of silence
toward the ceremonial system which characterizes the
other Apologists, but in the Dialogue with Trypho we
have an extended discussion of the question. Here

8 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
again the great prophetic declarations against cere
monialism are cited, as in Barnabas, to justify its abroga
tion. But Justin will not deny that the ceremonial once
existed according to God's will as an actual system of
worship. He gives two explanations of its purpose. It
was imposed upon the people because of their sins, for
punitive or disciplinary purposes. Again it was given
as a great Messianic type and assumes a specifically pre
dictive function. " By enumerating all the appointments
of Moses, I can demonstrate," says Justin, " that they
are types and symbols and declarations of those things
which would happen to Christ, of those men who, it
was foreknown, would believe on him, and of those
things which would be done by Christ himself." The
view of the ceremonial, as a disciplinary and punitive
apparatus, which emphasizes the letter, and the view of
it as a prediction of Christ in symbol, which emphasizes
the spirit, do not agree very well together, but Justin
does not seem to be conscious of the inconsistency.
Thus in attempting to meet the difficulties raised by the
Jew or the philosophic heathen or the intelligent
Christian himself in connection with the ceremonial
system, prophecy is introduced into the debate in two
ways. It is either played off against the ceremonial
system, in which case the prophets come into view as
the great exponents of spiritual religion; or the cere
monial system is itself subsumed under prophecy, partly
as teaching through symbols prophetic religion
(Barnabas), partly as a great type of Christ (Barnabas,
and especially Justin). In the latter case the ceremonial
becomes a complicated apparatus of prediction.
The second difficulty for the philosophically trained
Gentile which the Apologists set themselves to solve was

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GENTILES 9
the recent origin of Christianity. Christianity claimed
to be the absolute, the universal, religion. But how
could it be so if it had appeared at so late a period in the
history of the world ? Is not philosophic truth universal,
eternal? To those who, like the Apologists, sought to
make Christianity intelligible to themselves and to others
as a true philosophy, this recency of its origin was a con
stant stumbling block. The difficulty appears in an
especially interesting form in Justin. Justin's main
objection to the ceremonial was based on its disagree
ment with his ideas of a universal religion; it is impos
sible to think that God does not require the same thing
of all men. But that God does not require the cere
monial is proved from the case of the Patriarchs who
did not know the ceremonial law. Ceremonialism and
universalism are incompatible. The same objection may
be raised against the appearance of Christianity at so
late a date in history. Justin has been speaking of
human responsibility and goes on to say : " But lest some
should . . . maintain that we say that Christ was born
one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius and sub
sequently taught what we say he taught, and should cry
out against us as though all men who were born before
him were irresponsible — let us anticipate and solve the
difficulty." In other words, Christianity as a religion
for all mankind ought to be not only non-ceremonial, but
universal in time, contemporaneous with the whole de
velopment of human history. But what was the solu
tion of the difficulty which Justin proposed? Two
answers are given, one a philosophical speculation, the
other an historical and exegetical argument. In the
same passage in which Justin raises the question just
cited he introduces his Logos doctrine as an answer to

IO PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
it. " We have been taught that Christ is the first-born
of God and . . . Logos, of whom every race of men
were partakers, and those who lived with the Logos are
Christians even though they have been thought to be
atheists, as among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus
and men like them ; and among the Barbarians, Abraham
. . . and Elias." By this speculation Christianity was
dated back to the beginning of human history. " What
soever things were rightly spoken among all men are the
property of Christians."
Yet the Logos speculation by itself was scarcely
adequate to solve the difficulty of the historical novelty
of Christianity. It tended to unify preceding religious
movements rather than to differentiate Christianity from
other religions. What was needed was an historical
proof that Christianity in its specific form was after all
not recent but the oldest philosophy of all. This proof
was furnished by the Old Testament construed as a
Christian document. The interpretation of the Old
Testament as a Christian document was not justified by
the Apologists in connection with the argument from
antiquity. The propriety of such an interpretation had
been assumed from the beginning as a matter of course.
The Old Testament had been the only Scriptures of
Jesus and the Apostles and from them it had been handed
down to the Church. But the Scriptures of the Christian
Church must be Christian; that was a self-evident
proposition. Thus Barnabas denies the opinion of
some who hold that the covenant, i.e., the Old Testa
ment religion construed in a Christian sense, belongs to
both Jews and Christians. " It is ours, but they lost it
utterly, though Moses once received it." Justin says to
the Jew Trypho: "They [the writings of Moses and

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GENTILES II
David and Isaiah] are contained in your writings, or
rather not yours but ours." The Christian character of
the Old Testament being thus taken for granted, it re
mained only to point out its ancient date, and the
antiquity of Christianity was proved. Hence we find
elaborate chronological calculations among the Apolo
gists to prove that the Old Testament, and more par
ticularly Moses, was older than the Greek philosophers
and poets or than " all the ancient heroes, wars and
demons [gods]," as Tatian claimed.1
But it was not enough to show that Christianity as a
philosophy could lay claim in its own documents to a
vaster antiquity than any other philosophy. It was not
age alone that gave it its preeminence. The distinctive
ness and superiority of the Christian religion construed
as a philosophy lie for the Apologists in the fact that it
is a philosophy based on revelation. According to
Justin philosophers only speculate; Prophets know.
Prophets and philosophers may say similar things, but
what the Prophets say they say as inspired men, and their
sayings thus carry their own proof with them. Simi
larly Athenagoras draws the sharpest distinction be
tween the teachings of the Prophets, upon whom the
spirit of God played as upon a flute, and the teachings
of the poets and philosophers. But what proved the
inspiration of the Prophets? It is at this point that
1 These calculations had also another object. The toleration
which such a doctrine as the Logos speculation extended to the
Greek philosophers might be misconstrued. It was necessary to
insist on the uniqueness of the Old Testament and hence its im
mense antiquity was pointed out in order to show that the Greek
thinkers had either borrowed or stolen their ideas from the Hebrew
prophets, just as many apologists at the present time wish to show
that Persian eschatology is borrowed from Judaism.

12 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
the argument from prophecy and, be it noted, from
prophecy construed as prediction, is introduced. In
proving the inspiration of the Prophets and hence the re
vealed character of Christianity the case was rested
almost exclusively upon the argument from predictive
prophecy. The argument from antiquity proved it to
be a philosophy worthy to be compared with other
philosophies; it provided Christianity with a pedigree.
The argument from predictive prophecy demonstrated its
uniqueness and its superiority to all other philosophies;
the pedigree was noble. It is interesting to notice how
very sharply the connection between the antiquity, in
spiration and predictive function of the Prophets stands
out in the writings of the Apologists. Thus, for
example, Justin, in the account of his conversion, makes
the Christian with whom he talked speak as follows:
" There existed long before this time certain men more
ancient than all those who were esteemed philosophers
[antiquity] . . . who spoke by the divine spirit [in
spiration] and foretold events which would take place
and which are now taking place. They are called
Prophets . . . and those events which have happened
and those which are happening compel us to assent to
the utterances made by them " [prediction, the proof of
their inspiration and authority] . Tatian and Theophilus
give the reasons that led to their conversion in almost
exactly the same terms. Theophilus closes his state
ment with the confession : " Admitting, therefore, the
proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do
not disbelieve but believe." Christianity is not a recent
philosophy; it is the most ancient of all philosophies.
Better still, it is a philosophy based on revelation. Its
teachers, the Prophets, are inspired, and the proof of

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GENTILES 1 3
this is found in the fact that what they foretold came
to pass. Thus the predictive element in prophecy enters
into the discussion of the ceremonial system; it enters
even more vitally into the discussion of the antiquity
of the Christian religion. But what are the things the
Prophets foretold, the fulfilment of which would
guarantee that they had spoken by the spirit of God?
This question leads us to the third great problem men
tioned above, the problem of the person of Christ.
The problem of the person of Christ is treated at
length by Justin in his First Apology and in the Dialogue
with Trypho. In both treatises it is the central problem
around which the discussion revolves. " They proclaim
our madness to consist in this that we give to a crucified
man a place second to the unchangeable God, the creator
of all." In both treatises the argument from prophecy,
considered as prediction, offers the final justification of
this madness. " But lest any one should meet us with
the question : What should prevent that he whom we
call Christ, being a man born of men, performed . . .
his mighty works by magical arts and by this appeared
to be Son of God? — we will now offer proof, not trust
ing mere assertions, but being of necessity persuaded
by those who prophesied of him before these things
came to pass, for with our own eyes we behold things
that have happened and are happening just as they were
predicted, and this we think will appear to you [the
heathen readers of the Apology] the strongest and
truest evidence." Thus Justin begins the proof of the
divinity of Christ from prophecy (" the strongest and
truest evidence") in the Apology, and he concludes
the main section devoted to this argument as follows:
" Though we could bring forward many other prophe-

14 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
cies, we forbear, judging these sufficient for the
persuasion of those who have ears to hear and under
stand, and considering also that those persons are able
to see that we do not make assertions without being able
to produce proof. . . . For with what reason should
we believe of a crucified man that he is the first-born
of the unbegotten God and himself will pass judgment
on the whole human race unless we had found testi
monies concerning him, published before he came, and
unless we saw that things had happened accordingly ? "
The ramifications of the argument may best be observed
in the Dialogue with Trypho. In discussing the person
of Christ there were two main questions : Was Jesus the
Messiah and was the Messiah of divine nature, or " only
man born of men " ? This last question was especially
urgent since Christians claimed the right to worship him.
The discussion of the divine nature of the Messiah re
solved itself into the treatment of the following four
propositions : ( i ) If the Messiah were divine, this im
plied his preexistence, and there must accordingly be
another person called God in addition to the Father and
creator of all things. (2) If he were divine this im
plied an incarnation, in connection with which the
miraculous birth was discussed. (3) If he were divine
the problem of the passion becomes acute. (4) Lastly,
if he were divine the Messiah could not finally perish
in the passion, but must be exalted out of his estate
of humiliation to a position of glory. It is under these
rubrics and in this general order that the problem of the
person of Christ is discussed in the Dialogue. In each
case, except in the discussion of the preexistence of
Christ, where of course it could not be utilized, the proof
from prophecy, construed as prediction, is the final and

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GENTILES 1 5
conclusive evidence of Justin's contentions. All other
arguments for the messiahship or divinity of Jesus are
either ignored or completely subordinated to the argu
ment from the fulfilment of prediction, and this is true
in the Apology as well as in the Dialogue.1
In connection with the Virgin Birth and the Passion,
for example, the proof from prophecy is pressed to the
most astonishing extent. There is scarcely any attempt
to defend these cardinal doctrines of the Christian tradi
tion on intrinsic or theological grounds. A few times
Justin seeks to give a theological motive for the Virgin
Birth, as when he says that Christ became man by the
Virgin in order that the disobedience which proceeded
from the serpent might receive its destruction in the
same manner in which it derived its origin. In other
1 It is true that Justin at one point in the Apology sketches out
a more varied system of Christian evidences, when he speaks of
Jesus as one "who by his works [miracles], by the mighty deeds
wrought in his name [exorcism], by the words he taught, by the
prophecies announced concerning him, is the true, blameless and in
all things irreproachable Christ." But of these arguments only
exorcism and the proof from prophecy are relied upon. The argu
ment from miracles cannot be utilized with any confidence, for
Justin himself admits that miracles may be attributed to demons,
and hence he refers to the proof from miracles only incidentally.
Justin gives extended illustrations of the moral teachings of Jesus
(principally out of the Sermon on the Mount), but these are cited
against the charge of immorality which was brought against Chris
tians and not to prove the divinity of Jesus. As a matter of fact
they are consciously introduced as a digression before the proof that
Jesus can be properly worshiped is taken up. (Cf. Chap. 14 with
13 and 22.) In the Apology Justin also introduces mythological
analogies, more especially to the Virgin Birth and the Crucifixion,
but they are not so much intended to justify these peculiarly dif
ficult facts as to furnish an ad hominem argument against the ob
jections to them urged by his Gentile readers, and when Trypho in
the Dialogue seeks to discredit the Christian doctrines by adducing
these same analogies, Justin is on the defensive against them.

l6 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
words, the Virgin Mary is the antithesis of Eve, who, as
virgin, " conceived the word of the serpent and brought
forth death." But apart from this hint of the so-
called recapitulation theory, afterwards elaborated by
Irenaeus, this article of the creed is regarded only in the
light of a sign in connection with the fulfilment of pre
diction. To Trypho's objection that the Virgin Birth is
an incredible and wellnigh impossible thing, Justin re
torts that it is God's will, and, cut off as he is from
adducing heathen analogies to prove its possibility, he
cites Old Testament analogies, e.g., the various forms
in which Christ appeared in the Old Testament, and,
more pertinently, the cases of Sarah and Hannah, whom
God enabled to bear, though barren, and of Eve, whom
God made out of the rib of Adam. But the real point
at issue was whether God willed such a birth. Here
Justin falls back on prophecy. After rebuking Trypho
for supposing that it is impossible for God to do any
thing that he wills, he continues : " And especially
when it is predicted this would take place, do not venture
to pervert or misinterpret the prophecies." In other
words, the Virgin Birth is due to the will of God and
therefore it is possible. But that it is due to his will
is proved by the correspondence between prediction and
fulfilment. From this point of view the Virgin Birth
as a fulfilment is considered only as a sign. " But that
which is truly a sign and which was to be made trust
worthy to mankind [namely, the Virgin Birth], this
He anticipated by the spirit of prophecy and predicted
it as I have repeated to you ... in order that when the
event takes place it may be known as the operation of
the power and will of the Maker of all things." In the
same way the theological significance of the Passion is

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GENTILES 1 7
as completely subordinated to its prophetic significance
as a sign as in the case of the Virgin Birth. At the
outset of the formal discussion of Christ's Passion in
the Dialogue Justin answers Trypho's objection to the
idea of a crucified Messiah as follows: "If Christ was
not to suffer and the prophets had not foretold that he
would be led to death on account of the sins of the
people . . . then you would have good cause to wonder.
But if these [traits in the Messianic picture of Is. 53
to which Justin had just alluded] are to be considered
characteristic of him and to mark him out to all, how
is it possible for us to do anything else than believe con
fidently in him? And will not as many as have under
stood the writings of the Prophets, whenever they hear
merely that he is crucified, say that this is he and no
other?" The details of Is. 53 and Ps. 22, which are
interpreted verse by verse as specific instances of
humiliation in Jesus' life, are considered only as signs.
The religious significance of these passages is nowhere
discussed, only their predictive significance. Thus the
reference to the pierced hands and feet at Ps. 22 : 16-18
is a sign that the psalm refers to Christ, as no one among
the Jews " who has been called king or Christ has ever
had his hands or feet pierced while alive or has died
in this mysterious fashion, namely by the cross, save
this Jesus alone." Justin, it is true, does refer not in
frequently to Jesus' death on the cross as efficacious in
the redemption of the world. But this is hardly more
than a repetition of a traditional ' formula. He con
tents himself with the simple assertion of this fact; he
does not expound or utilize it in argument. For
example, in discussing Dt. 21:23, which Trypho urged
with special insistence against the idea of a crucified

l8 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Messiah, Justin does, indeed, say that "the Father of
all wished his Christ ... to take upon himself the
curse of all." But this statement, which seems to do
justice to the religious significance of the crucifixion,
is largely neutralized by what immediately follows:
"For the saying in the Law (Dt. 21 : 23) confirms our
hope, which depends on the crucified Christ, not because
he who is crucified is cursed of God, but because God
foretold that which would be done by you all [the Jews'
treatment of Jesus] . . . and you see clearly that this
has come to pass." Thus the religious significance of
the cross is again lost. In that sign Justin conquers.
In the treatment of the exaltation of Christ, that is,
his resurrection, ascension and second coming, the view
of these events as fulfilments of prediction again pre
dominates. They satisfied those prophecies in the Old
Testament which foretold a glorified Messiah.1 In con
nection with the second coming, however, a difficulty
was encountered. There were many prophecies in the
Old Testament which seemed to prophesy a kingly and
reigning Christ, and a glorified Jerusalem as the seat
of his rule. These prophecies very obviously had not
been fulfilled as yet. Hence Justin distinguishes be
tween two advents, the first advent in humiliation and
the second advent when Christ comes in glory. But
what reason was there for a belief in the prophecies
which concerned the second advent? In the Apology
Justin makes a weighty statement upon this point and
one which, as we shall see, is fundamental to the sub-
1 Yet at this point it is only fair to say that Justin shows at times
an interest in Christ's exaltation apart from its relationship to
prophecy. It is the exalted Christ who redeems from the power
of demons and, as judge, distributes rewards and punishments.

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GENTILES 1 9
ject of the present essay. " Since, then, we prove that
all things which have already happened had been pre
dicted by the Prophets before they came to pass, we
must necessarily believe also that those things which
are in like manner predicted but are yet to come to pass,
shall certainly come to pass. For as the things which
have already taken place come to pass when foretold
even though they are unknown, so shall the things which
remain, even though they be unknown and disbelieved,
also come to pass." He then goes on to apply this
principle to the two advents. Thus the fulfilment of
the predictions concerning the first advent is made the
guaranty of the fulfilment of the predictions concern
ing the second advent. In other words, faith in the
second advent is indissolubly connected with the predic
tive theory of prophecy. We shall have occasion to re
turn to this subject in the sequel. It may be noticed in
passing that Justin is a representative of the Millenarian
movement in the Early Church. He confesses his belief
in a very literalistic interpretation of those prophecies
which he refers to the second advent, though he freely
admits that there are good Christian men who do not
share his views on this point.
If we review what has thus far been said it is clear
that in Justin and the Apologists the independent
significance of Jesus' work on earth is largely ignored.
The details of his incarnate life are of interest only
as they furnish the necessary complements to the predic
tions of the Old Testament and thus round out the proof
from prophecy. The predictions alone would be value
less without the fulfilments; the events of Christ's life
are apparently of little value except as fulfilments. The
general effect of the argument from prophecy as con-

20 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
ducted by the Apologists was to merge Christianity into
the prophetic religion of the Old Testament. The
supreme interest of these champions of Christianity was
in monotheism and morals. But in these two particu
lars the prophetic religion of the Old Testament did not
differ in essence from Christianity. It could not do so.
God is always the same and his moral requirements are
always the same. Hence prophetic religion could differ
from Christianity only in form. There were in reality
three stages in the development of the true religion:
(a) the Mosaic Law, in which the eternal moral obli
gations were combined for various purposes with
temporary moral requirements; (b) prophecy, in which
only the eternal requirements of repentance and holy
living were enjoined; and (c) Christianity, in which
these requirements are expressed more simply, clearly
and completely. Jesus is accordingly primarily the
Teacher, the new Lawgiver, and Christianity is the New
Law. With this view agrees the Logos doctrine so
characteristic of the Greek Apologists in which Christ
appears primarily as Revealer. Thus the religious con
tent of Christianity and the Prophetic religion are
practically the same. At this point the argument from
prophecy enters in and cancels the independent value of
the life of Christ. Instead of completing the work of
Paul and differentiating Christianity from the Old
Testament after the Church had been differentiated from
the Synagogue, the Apologists construed Christianity
as prophecy. " Prophecy after the death of Moses is
everlasting," says Justin. Even Moses himself, after
the elimination of the ceremonial, appears as a prophet.
The convincing proof that the really distinctive
characteristics of Christianity were largely lost sight

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GENTILES 21
of by the Apologists is the fact that in their writings
the New Testament is completely subordinated to the
Old Testament. The latter is the real canon of these
writers. From it the second article of the creed as
well as the first is justified. Two qualifications, how
ever, should be made to what has just been said. The
Apologists found an independent and redemptive
significance in Christ's power over the demons; but
this did not materially aid them to any clear apprehen
sion of the difference between the New Testament and
the Old Testament. Again it must be remembered that
in the works of the Apologists we are dealing with a
peculiar class of writings having a peculiar audience
in view, and we must be slow to draw from these
apologetic writings conclusions as to the personal belief
of their authors or to deny that they may have had
a richer and deeper Christian experience than is recorded
in their works that have come down to us. Yet, as has
been pointed out by others, it is not the personal experi
ence of the Apologists that has influenced the history of
doctrine but their scientific defenses of Christianity, and
in these, when all allowance has been made, there is
manifested an " inability to discover a specific signif
icance for the person of Christ within the sphere of
revelation." But was this to be the final interpretation
of Christianity? Was it justifiable thus to read back
the Gospel into the Old Testament, or, rather, to construe
the Gospel by the Old Testament? The Church, as we
have seen, had differentiated itself from Judaism, but
had retained the Scriptures of Judaism. Was this not
after all an untenable position? Logically, should not
as sharp a distinction be drawn between the Gospel and
the Old Testament as between the Church and the

22 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Synagogue? These were the questions raised by the
Gnostics and Marcion. " The separation between the
Law and Gospel is the proper and principal work of
Marcion," is the bitter comment of Tertullian. In meet
ing the attack of the Gnostics and Marcion the proof
from prophecy construed as prediction again enters into
the debate in a most vital way. Ill
The supreme interest of the Gnostics was in the prob
lem of redemption, and it was therefore the redemptive
element in Christianity which appealed to them most
strongly. In Jesus Christ they saw the Savior. As
such he was unique, and Christianity as the religion of
redemption was unique. In accordance with this view
it is not surprising to find the writings of the New Testa
ment now pushed to the front and given an independent
significance in theology. Just how far the Gnostics may
have anticipated the Catholic Church in the formation
of the New Testament canon may be an open question,
but it is practically certain that they were the first to
use the Scriptures of the New Testament for apologetic
as distinguished from didactic purposes. From them
come the first commentaries on the New Testament, in
which they sought to expound their peculiar theories and
give to them a Christian coloring. They also laid
great emphasis upon apostolicity in doctrine, especially
upon the secret apostolic tradition which they claimed
to possess and by which they sought to justify their
interpretations of the New Testament. But in propor
tion as the New Testament came to the front as the
foundation of Christianity, the religion of redemption,

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GNOSTICS 23
the Old Testament, fell into the background and became
subject to criticism. In all these particulars the Gnostics
stand in the sharpest contrast with the Greek Apologists.
Nothing can be more illuminating than the difference in
the way in which Justin, for example, criticizes the cere
monial law in the Dialogue with Trypho and in which
Ptolemaeus treats the law generally in his Epistle to
Flora (both writings dating from about the same time).
Justin subjects only the ceremonial law to criticism,
bases his strictures upon his philosophical conceptions
of God and of ethics, and defends them by appealing to
the case of the Patriarchs, who were righteous without
the ceremonial, and to the Prophets, who preached against
it. Ptolemseus criticizes the entire law on the basis of
the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Only once is
a passage from a prophet quoted. In other words, Jus
tin uses the Old Testament to prove his points and
Ptolemseus uses the New Testament. Thus the burning
question between the orthodox Fathers and the Gnostics
was what attitude should be adopted toward the Old
Testament. In the discussion of this question the argu
ment from prophecy occupied a foremost place. Just
how this came about must now be noticed.
The elements in Gnosticism directly bearing upon our
argument are as follows. The Gnostics had a dualistic
conception of the universe. For them matter was orig
inally and inherently evil. The problem of the creation
of the world thus became the great speculative problem
in their theosophical systems. The infinite God could
not come into defiling contact with organically evil mat
ter in order to create the world any more than he could
have originally created evil matter itself. How, then,
is the transition from the infinite being to evil matter

24 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
to be effected and the possibility of a creation secured?
This problem was solved by the doctrine of emanations.
By a process of self-limitation through a succession of
emanations, the Divine Essence could eventually become
so attenuated that the last emanation of the series was
so imperfectly divine that it could come into contact
with and work creatively upon matter without too violent
a shock to its divinity. This last emanation, or aeon, is
the Demiurge, or world-builder; a being which, under
varying forms, is common to all the Gnostic systems.
These systems have been classified from various points
of view, but for our purposes they may be differentiated
among themselves by their different conceptions of the
character of the Demiurge. There was a radical and a
temperate view of him. The more moderate Gnostic
schools, like the Valentinians, conceived of the Demi
urge as representing the Supreme Being in the work of
creation. The Demiurge carried out the will of the
Supreme Being, but he did so largely unconsciously. He
therefore could not grasp the final purpose of the crea
tion which he had formed. Hence arose its many im
perfections. On the other hand, in the process of emana
tion, the last link in the succession might be regarded as
so far removed from its original source as to become
practically independent of it, and, taking one step more,
some of the Ophite sects came to regard the Demiurge
as directly antagonistic to the Supreme Being.
Finally, Jesus, in all these systems, is the highest aeon,
the direct revelation of the Supreme Being, and is hence
distinguished from the preceding emanations, particu
larly from the Demiurge. At this point the religious
and soteriological interest is introduced into the cosmo-
logical speculations. Christ came to reveal what the

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GNOSTICS 25
final purpose of God is in creation, of which the Demi
urge had but a dim and imperfect conception, and to
save men from the painful limitations of a world formed
by one either so ignorant of the will of the Supreme
Being or so hostile to it as the Demiurge was supposed
to be. " Christianity," as another has remarked, " the
highest revelation of the true God, appeared [to the
Gnostics] as the true revelation of the highest God."
The bearing of these theories upon our discussion will
now become clear. The Demiurge, or the Creator of the
World, is identified by the Gnostics with the God revealed
in the Old Testament, on account of the first chapter in
Genesis. The Old Testament belongs to him, therefore
it partakes of his character. Thus the dualism of the
Gnostics is transferred from the world to revelation,
from cosmology to Scripture. The Old Testament, like
the world, is full of imperfections. The more radical
Gnostics had a keen eye for all that appeared to them
unworthy of God in the Old Testament, his vindictive-
ness and passionate nature, the cruel severity and sense
lessness and inconsistency of his laws. This criticism
was carried to such a pitch that men who opposed the
favorites of the Demiurge were praised. Esau and the
Sodomites now became canonized and even Cain received
a halo ! There is thus created an antithesis, varying in
sharpness in proportion to the different conceptions of
the Demiurge, between the Old Testament, the book of
the Demiurge, and the Gospel, or revelation of the high
est aeon, Christ. The Old Testament is no longer re
garded as a Christian book. It belongs, not to the
Christians, but to the Jews — the people of the Demiurge.
In this way the view of the Old Testament, entertained
by the Primitive Church and defended by the Apologists,

26 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
was flatly rejected and the unity of the two Testaments
broken down. But prophecy, both as spiritual religion
and especially as prediction, is that which seems to bind
the two Testaments most firmly together. Accordingly,
the Gnostics, in the degree in which they rejected the Old
Testament revelation, rejected its prophecies also. The
highest aeon, Christ, is not the fulfiller of Old Testament
prophecies, or at least is so only to a limited extent.
This view is given its most rigorous expression by
Marcion. Marcion, indeed, cannot be strictly regarded as a
Gnostic. He ignored the speculative and cosmological
side of Gnosticism and emphasized only its religious and
redemptive side. To him the redemption in Christ was
so marvelous that it became historically inexplicable. It
must be something entirely de novo. It had nothing to
do with Judaism or with the Scriptures of Judaism.
" Marcion's special and principal work is the separation
of the Law and the Gospel," Tertullian complains, and
again he says : " He is the author of the breach of
peace between the two and consequently of the twofold
document that contains them." At this point Marcion
borrows the idea of the Demiurge from the Gnostics.
The Jews were the peculiar people of the Demiurge ; the
Old Testament was his peculiar book and the Messiah
of the Old Testament belonged to him and had nothing
to do with the Christ of the New Testament. Unable to
gain the supremacy over the world for his own people,
the Jews, this " Jew-god " promised them in the Old
Testament a Messiah who would achieve this victory for
them. The Messiah of the Old Testament was a being
corresponding more to the ordinary contemporary Jew
ish conception of the Messiah, and totally unlike the

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GNOSTICS 27
spiritual aeon and true Messiah of the New Testament.
At this point Marcionite and Jew are found fighting
shoulder to shoulder against the orthodox Church, though
from quite different premises. Both held essentially the
same view of the Messiah promised in the Old Testa
ment. But the Jew denied that Jesus was the Messiah
of the Old Testament because the Jew rejected the New
Testament; Marcion denied the identification because he
rejected the Old Testament.
It is obvious that in the debate with the Gnostics and
the Marcionites the argument from prophecy must oc
cupy an extremely important place. As a matter of
fact this argument, in the form of it elaborated by the
Apologists, was taken over bodily into the writings of
the Old-Catholic Fathers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, and
turned against the heretics. The great thesis of
Irenaeus's work, Against Heresies, which is repeated
again and again, is, " We have not been taught another
God besides the Father and Maker of all things [namely
the God of the Old Testament] . . . nor another
Christ . . . besides him who was foretold by the
Prophets," and Books III and IV are devoted to the
scriptural proof of this thesis. Through them the argu
ment from prophecy runs like a warp. For example, in
IV, 10, 11, the unity of the two Testaments is established
and the identity of the God of both covenants vindicated
by the fact that what the God of the Old Testament
foretold by the Prophets the Christ of the New Testa
ment fulfilled. In IV, 33-36 a classical formulation of
the argument from prophecy is found. In these chap
ters the unity of prophecy and its organic connection with
Christ are set forth under the figure of the body and its
members. The Prophets are members of Christ ; as each

28 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
member has its own special function, so each prophet
has his own special view of Christ. But as the body is
complete only in all its members, so the picture of Christ
is complete only when all the various prophecies are
combined together in one whole. Then follows a long
series of predictions of the facts of Christ's life, includ
ing the Virgin Birth and the details of the Passion.
On the basis of such passages Irenaeus urges Marcion
and men like him who maintain that the Prophets be
longed to another God to read the Gospel carefully and
then the Prophets, and " they will find that the whole
conduct and all the doctrine and all the suffering of our
Lord were predicted by them. But whence could the
Prophets have derived the power to predict ... all
things which were done by Christ ... if they had re
ceived inspiration from another God ? " These various
coincidences, it is argued, could not haye happened
simply by chance. " The points connected with the Pas
sion of the Lord which were foretold, were realized in
no other case." The same thesis is next maintained
against the Valentinian position that the Prophets be
longed to the Demiurge and hence falsehood and truth
were blended in their prophecies.
In Tertullian's work, Against Marcion, the argument
from prophecy stands out even more sharply defined, if
anything, than in Irenaeus. Book III expressly, and
Book IV very largely, are devoted to the elaboration
of this argument, which is summed up in the statement
that " Christ will be the Christ of the Prophets whenever
he is found to be in accord with the Prophets." Book
III leads off with a demonstration of the absurdity, even,
of an unpredicted Christ. " Suddenly a son, suddenly
sent and suddenly Christ ! " Tertullian exclaims, " On

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GNOSTICS 29
the contrary, I should suppose that nothing comes sud
denly from God because there is nothing which is not
ordered and arranged by God; and, if ordered, why not
foretold, that it may be proved to have been ordered by
the prediction." After the absurdity of an unpredicted
Christ is demonstrated (chaps. 1-4) and some remarks
made on the principles of prophetic interpretation (chap.
5), Marcion is forced by Tertullian to side with the
Jews because of his denial that the Old Testament
prophecies are fulfilled in Jesus (chap. 6, 7). In chaps.
8-1 1 there is an argument against Marcion's docetism
which leads on to an elaborate exposition of the Virgin
Birth, prophesied in Is. 7: 14, in order to prove a real
incarnation (chaps. 12-14). Finally in chaps. 18-25 a
great mass of heterogeneous predictions is cited in proof
of his main thesis. The argument is really carried over
into Book IV which closes with the following triumphant
claim : " And now, as I venture to believe, we have ac
complished our undertaking. We have set forth Jesus
Christ as none other than the Christ of the Creator [the
Demiurge]. Our proofs have been drawn from his
doctrines, maxims, affections, feelings, miracles, suf
ferings and even resurrection, as foretold by the Prophets
. . . Marcion, I pity you. Your labor has been in vain.
For the Jesus who appears in your gospel is mine." No
statement could better illustrate the absolute confidence
which the Fathers placed in the argument from prophecy,
construed as prediction.
In one respect the argument was given, incidentally,
an even wider range in the anti-Gnostic writers than in
the Apologists. In the works of the latter the moral
difficulties of the Old Testament had been scarcely
touched. But the Gnostics and Marcion had directed

30 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
attention to them. In opposition to their criticisms the
Fathers were compelled to adopt the same attitude to
ward the moral difficulties which the Apologists had
adopted toward the ceremonial and subsume them at
times under Messianic types. In the treatment of such
difficulties Irenaeus claims that he had received two
canons of interpretation from an ancient presbyter.
( I ) " With respect to those misdeeds for which the
Scriptures themselves blame the Patriarchs and Prophets,
we are not to inveigh against them nor become like Ham
who ridiculed the shame of his father; but we should
give thanks to God . . . inasmuch as their sins have been
forgiven them through the advent of our Lord. (2)
With respect to those actions on which the Scriptures
pass no censure, we ought not to become accusers, for
we are not more exact than God; but we should search
for a type. For not one of those things which have been
set down in Scripture without being condemned is with
out significance." As an example Irenaeus gives the
incest of Lot's daughters. The details are so offensive
to our modern taste that they need not be repeated here,
though it is only fair to say that those who apply the
physical allusions in the Song of Songs to Christ and
his bride the Church need not be shocked by the ancient
Father's treatment of the deed of Lot's daughters.
But while the argument from prophecy in the Old-
Catholic Fathers is of the utmost importance, there is
nevertheless a subtle change of emphasis in these writers
as compared with the Apologists, occasioned by the
Gnostic mode of attack which had to be countered. The
argument from prophecy does not occupy the exclusive
position which it had previously occupied. This is seen
in the following particulars: the new and more his-

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GNOSTICS 3 1
torical estimate of the ceremonial; the independent sig
nificance of the New Testament as compared with the
Old Testament, and the independent significance assigned
to the circumstances of Christ's life and of his teach
ings. The shift of emphasis as seen in these three facts
is of fundamental importance. It means the ultimate
withering away of the argument from prophecy.
In Irenaeus we meet for the first time with an honest
attempt to do justice to the letter of the Law. This he
was enabled to do in connection with his most distinctive
contribution to Christian theology, his recapitulation
theory and his doctrine of " the economies." According
to the Gnostics, the act of creation and the act of re
demption are disparate. They are the acts of different
gods. According to Irenaeus, creation and redemption
correspond. Redemption is the recapitulation or restora
tion of the original order and harmony of the universe.
Christ, who effects this, is the second Adam. The in
terval between the first and second Adam is a history of
salvation marked off in definite economies or covenants,
and culminating in Christ. There are four of these
covenants; the Adamic, the Noahic, the Mosaic and the
Evangelic covenant, which last " recapitulates all things
in itself, bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly-
kingdom." Redemption is thus not sudden and catas
trophic, as on the Gnostic view, but the result of an
ordered development. " By means of the successive
covenants men are gradually to attain to perfect salva
tion, for there is one salvation and one God [note the
anti-Gnostic aim of the statement] , but the precepts which
form man are various and the steps which lead man to
God are not a few." In the framework of this scheme
room is found for the ideas of accommodation and peda-

32 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
gogy, various means being employed in the various stages
of man's progress, and so Irenaeus arrives at a fairly
historical valuation of the Law. The Law belongs to a
definite covenant, the Mosaic, and is adapted to the par
ticular needs of that covenant. As contrasted with the
treatment of the Law by Barnabas and Justin, its treat
ment by Irenaeus marks a great advance. The letter of
the Law now begins to come to its own. But it is clear
that in proportion as the Law can be historically justified
as letter, it is no longer so urgently necessary to interpret
it as a great apparatus of Messianic symbolism. When
it can be assigned an historical function in the economy
of redemption the obligation to interpret it Messianically
is not so burdensome. Yet it must not be imagined that
Irenaeus did not entertain the typical and Messianic view
of the Law. The Law in its pedagogical aspect calls
the people " to the things of primary importance by
means of those which are secondary, that is, to things
which are real by means of those which are typical, and
by things temporal to the eternal, and by the carnal to
the spiritual, and by the earthly to the heavenly . . . for
by means of types they learned to fear God." That the
typical includes distinctively Messianic types is clear
from the proof passage cited in this connection (i Cor.
10: n) and from the great generalizing statement which
immediately follows and which may be taken as the
summary of Irenaeus's view of the Law: "They [the
Jews] had, therefore, a law, a course of discipline and a
prophecy of future things." The letter has gained a
new recognition in Irenaeus, but the consequences of this
had not worked themselves out nor were they to do so
for many ages afterward. The prophetic view of the
Law and the historical view of the Law were to remain

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GNOSTICS 33
for many centuries side by side unconscious of their real
incompatibility. Of more immediate importance in its effect upon the
argument from prophecy is the increasing significance
that now begins to attach to the New Testament. This
is illustrated by the way in which the argument is intro
duced by Irenaeus and Tertullian as compared with the
way in which it was introduced by the Apologists. The
latter started with the Old Testament and worked for
ward to the New Testament. The anti-heretical writers
started with the New Testament and worked back to the
Old Testament. This change was due, of course, to the
controversies with the heretics. They accepted the New
Testament but rejected the Old Testament. The latter
was the thing to be proved. Thus Irenaeus and Ter
tullian make a special point of arguing only from those
documents which were accepted by their opponents.
Irenaeus urges Marcion first to read the Gospels and then
the Prophets and mark the correspondences. The
Apologists would have reversed this process. Even
more significant is the statement of Tertullian. After
claiming that he had proved Christ to be the Christ of the
Prophets he says : " And the result of this agreement
between the facts of his career and the Scriptures of the
Creator [the Old Testament] should be the restoration
of belief in them." Now the result of adopting the New
Testament as the starting-point in the debate with the
heretics is that the argument for the unity of the two
Testaments, the point at issue, was widened out far
beyond the proof from prophecy strictly defined. The
correspondence between prediction and fulfilment is only
one among many correspondences between them, between
the Messiah and Jesus, between the Demiurge and the

34 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Redeemer. " Christ must be pronounced to belong to
the Creator if he has administered his dispensations,
fulfilled his prophecies, promoted his laws, given reality
to his promises, revived his mighty power, remolded his
decrees, expressed his attributes, his properties." This
program of Tertullian includes much more than the cor
respondence between prediction and fulfilment, and, in
spite of the fact that at the end of his argument he seems
to lump everything under this one rubric, as a matter
of fact he adheres most faithfully to his program. In
this Tertullian is only following in the steps of Irenaeus.
Thus the great section on the Law in Irenaeus (IV. 12-
19) is devoted to proving that the Law and the Gospel
are not in antithesis, as the Gnostics claimed, but are in
correspondence. Christ must be the Christ of the Demi
urge as he borrows his law of love from the Mosaic law.
If the Gnostics or Marcion point to the judicial severity
of the God of the Old Testament, Irenaeus can point to
the terrible woes pronounced by Christ upon his op
ponents. If the Demiurge hardened Pharaoh's heart,
Jesus spake in parables, that, seeing, they might not under
stand, etc. The pages of Irenaeus and Tertullian are
swimming with all sorts of alleged correspondences be
tween the two Testaments other than the correspond
ence between prophecy and fulfilment. Some of these
are profound, some superficial, some positively grotesque,
but even in the latter instances the real significance of
this wider argument is very great. The New Testament
is no longer reduced to the function of furnishing signs
that the prophecies have been fulfilled. There is, in the
present instance, a real, even if at times a naive, attempt
to connect the two Testaments historically and morally.
The proof from prophecy, instead of being the sole link

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GNOSTICS 3$
which unites the two covenants, is now but one strand,
though a very important one, in the cord that binds them
together. Immediately connected with the adoption of the New
Testament as a working basis of apologetics against the
heretics and the consequent inclusion into the argument
of a much more extensive exegetical material than could
be resumed under the category of prediction and fulfil
ment, is the new dogmatic significance attached to the
facts of Christ's life and to his teachings. The heretics
were forcing the Christian Church to analyze its Chris
tian consciousness and to define the specific content of the
religion of the New Testament more sharply. We saw
how, in the argument of the Apologists, Christianity
tended to become merged into prophecy and how the
facts of Christ's life were of value chiefly because it
was possible by means of them to round out the proof
from prophecy. But in the debate with the Gnostics
Christ's life and teaching begin to assume an independent
value. In other words Christian dogma begins to de
velop with great rapidity. To illustrate this fully would
require us to broaden out the present treatise into a gen
eral history of dogma. For our immediate purpose two
illustrations must suffice. We saw that the Virgin Birth
and the details of the Passion were used by Justin prac
tically only to supplement such prophecies as Is. 7 : 14
or Is. 53 and Ps. 22. But now these facts gain a dog
matic significance of their own. They are worked into
a great philosophy of the incarnation which is especially
developed by Irenaeus in connection with his recapitula
tion theory. Against the docetism of the Gnostics and
Marcion on the one hand and the naturalism of the
Ebionites on the other, Irenaeus definitely sets himself

36 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
to answer the great question of Christian theology:
Cur deus homo? He answers the question as follows:
" Unless man had overcome the enemy of man, the
enemy would not have been legitimately overcome; and
again unless it had been God who had freely given salva
tion, we could never have possessed it securely. ... It
was incumbent upon the Mediator between God and man,
by his relationship to both, to bring both to friendship
and concord." On this view it is absolutely necessary
that the incarnation be a real one and the Virgin Birth
and the Passion were considered to be the two most
serviceable facts to establish its reality. The Virgin
Birth in its turn was connected by a mystical analogy
with the recapitulation theory. " As Adam had his sub
stance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (Gen. 2:5!)
and was formed by the hand of God ... so did the
Word, recapitulating Adam in himself, rightly receive a
birth, which enabled him to gather up Adam from Mary
who was as yet a Virgin." In other words the Virgin
Birth stands for two things: an actual birth, and there
fore an actual connection of Christ with the human race,
Adam being " gathered up through Mary "; and a divine
origin, God being the father of Jesus as he was of Adam;
that is, the Virgin Birth stands for a real incarnation.
The desire to emphasize the reality of the incarnation in
a dogmatic interest is also seen very crassly exhibited in
Tertullian, who urges on the one hand all the offensive
details of parturition and early infancy in his eagerness
to defend the reality of the birth against Marcion's
docetism, and on the other hand argues for a kind of
arithmetical necessity of a Virgin Birth if Christ, as
Marcion holds, is to be really divine. We may think as
little as we please of the kind of arguments used by these

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GNOSTICS 37
Fathers, but at least they show how these men were
getting beyond, even though unconsciously, the sign
theory of the Virgin Birth. In the same way the details
of the Passion are utilized against the docetism of the
heretics. " He suffered nothing," says Tertullian, " who
did not truly suffer," and the details of the Passion were
adduced, of course, to prove that he truly suffered.
In the foregoing I have sought to show how, through
a more historical view of the Law, through an increasing
recognition of the independent value of the New Testa
ment as compared with the Old Testament and through a
more developed theory of the inherent dogmatic im
portance of the facts of Christ's life, the proof from
prophecy would naturally tend to become relatively less
important than in the writings of the Apologists. In
part it is rendered superfluous (in connection with the
new view of the Law), in part it is supplemented by a
great many other exegetical arguments to prove the unity
of the two Testaments, in part it becomes unnecessary as
the facts of Christ's life take on a value independent of
the fact that they had been foretold. Nevertheless the
anti-Gnostic writers themselves can hardly be said to
have realized this change of emphasis. The proof from
prophecy is still their chief reliance, and the sign-theory
of Jesus' life, as confirming prophecy, is innocently re
tained side by side with the growing recognition of its
intrinsic significance. Thus when Irenaeus holds that
all Philip had to do in order to convince the Ethiopian
eunuch was to read to him the fifty-third chapter of
Isaiah, or when he avers that the Apostles to the Jews
had an easier time than the Apostles to the Gentiles be
cause " they were assisted by the Scriptures which the
Lord fulfilled in coming as he had been announced," he

38 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
evidently implies a sign-theory of prophecy. This is also
seen in the difficulty in differentiating the Old Testa
ment from the New Testament which he himself feels
arises out of this theory of prophecy. After urging
Marcion to compare the two and observe how prophecy
and fulfilment correspond and how all the conduct, doc
trines and sufferings of the Lord were predicted, he
raises the question which he supposes Marcion might
ask : " What, then, did the Lord bring by his advent ? "
Tertullian's conduct of the argument from prophecy
implies the sign-theory in its most exaggerated form.
Nothing comes from God unordered or unarranged.
" But if ordered, why not also foretold, that it may be
proved to have been ordered by the prediction." Ps. 22
is treated in precisely the same way as Justin treated it —
"It contains the entire passion of Christ" — and in IV.
40-43 the sign-theory and the intrinsic significance of the
details of the Passion are inextricably interwoven.
It will be readily seen from the discussion thus far
that the argument from prophecy was one of the most
important factors, perhaps it would be safe to say the
most important single factor, in the apologetics of the
first two centuries. It was necessarily the burning ques
tion between Jew and Christian whenever they came into
any real debate with one another. It was the corner
stone in the system of the Greek Apologists. It played
a fundamental part in what was one of the most critical
struggles in the history of the Church, the struggle with
the Gnostic and Marcionite heresies. These heretics at
tempted for the first time something like an historical
criticism of the Old Testament, though, it is true, they
did this from a religious rather than from an historical
interest. All honor to them for it! They pointed out

THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE GNOSTICS 39
in particular certain features of Messianic prophecy
which, though long denied, have been finally recognized
by a scientific exegesis. But their criticism was carried
on in the interest of theories fatal to the life of the
Church. If they had succeeded in inducing the Church
to reject the Law and the Prophets, they would have re
moved the foundation upon which Jesus himself claimed
to build (Marcion significantly deleted Mt. 5: 17, a pas
sage often cited against him) and would have smoothed
the way for a complete Hellenization of Christianity.
Hence the apologetic importance for the Early Church
of the argument from prophecy cannot be too strongly
emphasized. It saved the Old Testament to the Chris
tian religion in the only way in which, at that time,
it could be saved. But by saving the Old Testament it
preserved the organic connection of Christianity with
the previous history of revelation and prevented it from
becoming evaporated into theosophical speculations or
distorted into a one-sided, because unhistorical, develop
ment. It can be readily understood that an argument
which played such a fundamental part in the formative
period of the Christian Church would leave an indelible
impression upon subsequent theological thought. Early
impressions are apt to be lasting.

CHAPTER II
THE PREDOMINANCE OF THE PREDICTIVE ELEMENT IN
THE PATRISTIC ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY
Having shown the extent and importance of the argu
ment from prophecy in the Patristic Period, it is next in
order to point out the peculiar nature of the argument.
This has already been incidentally done to a considerable
extent, but for the sake of the logical development of
the discussion and in order to study this peculiarity in its
proper perspective some repetition and amplification at
the present point may be pardoned.

As we have seen, the whole emphasis was laid upon
the predictive element in prophecy and upon the minute
ad litteram correspondence between prophecy and ful
filment. " This is the work of God," says Justin, " to
tell of a thing before it happens and to show it as hap
pening as it was foretold." The Prophets, it is true,
were also looked upon as teachers of morals and mono
theism (e.g. Barnabas, Justin and the Apologists gen
erally, especially in their discussions of the ceremonial),
but the function of teaching is completely subordinated
by these writers to the function of foretelling. It is to
the marvel of prediction that Justin, Tatian and Theo
philus ascribe their conversion. When it becomes neces-
40

PROPHECY INTERPRETED AS PREDICTION 41
sary formally to define prophecy or a prophet, it is the
predictive function which is primarily included in the
definition. " There were among the Jews," Justin ex
plains in his Apology, " certain men who were Prophets
of God, through whom the prophetic spirit published be
forehand things that were to come to pass." When
Irenaeus wishes to describe the nature of prophecy he
says, " Prophecy is a prediction of things future, that
is, a setting forth beforehand of those things which shall
be hereafter." The sign-theory of prophecy, which has
been found to be so striking a characteristic of the patris
tic view of prophecy, implies, necessarily, the same ex
clusive emphasis upon prediction and fulfilment. " That
which was truly a sign," says Justin, in connection with
his use of the Virgin Birth, " this he anticipated by the
spirit of prophecy and predicted, in order that when the
event should take place it might be known as the opera
tion of the power and will of the Maker of all things."
Again he says, " It was not his entrance into Jerusalem
sitting on an ass, which we have shown was prophesied,
that empowered him to be Christ, but it furnished men
with the proof that he was Christ . . . and as this was
done by him in the precise manner in which it was
prophesied [Gen. 49:10, Zech. 9:9] that it would be
done by Christ and as the fulfilment was recognized, it
became a clear proof that he was the Christ." When
Irenaeus urges Marcion to compare the Gospels with
the Prophets and to observe how minutely they corre
spond, or when Tertullian contends that all things are
ordered by God, " and if ordered, why not foretold, that
it may be proved to have been ordered by the prediction,"
the same sign-theory of prophecy and consequent empha
sis upon prediction are typically illustrated. It is a logi-

42 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
cal consequence of such a theory when the Fathers at
times hold that the more impossible a thing predicted is,
the greater is the evidential value of its fulfilment. This
consideration is especially urged in connection with the
Virgin Birth. Thus Justin says : " For things which
were incredible, these God predicted by the prophetic
spirit as about to come to pass, in order that when they
came to pass there might be no unbelief but faith, be
cause of the prediction." Similarly Tertullian : "Now
a sign from God would not have been a sign unless it
had been some novel and prodigious thing." In such
statements a wholly magical view of prophecy is involved.
Tertullian drives the sign-theory of predictive proph
ecy so far that at times he arrives at a practically fatal
istic view of it. Thus, in a comment upon Amos 2 : 6
as a prophecy of Judas's betrayal of Jesus for a price ( !),
he naively remarks : " It might have been well enough
for another Christ to be betrayed without price, but it
would not have been suitable in the case of one who was
fulfilling prophecies." Again, in explaining the state
ment that the Son of Man must be delivered up, he says:
" Must be delivered up and why ' must be? except it was
written by God the Creator " [i.e. in the Old Testament]
..." Were the words ' with desire have I desired to
eat this passover with you before I suffer ' spoken be
cause he was fond of Jewish lamb and not rather be
cause he was led like a lamb to the slaughter and wished
to accomplish the symbol ? . . . He might have been be
trayed by any stranger did not I find that here, too, he
fulfilled a psalm (Ps. 41:9)." Such incautious state
ments must have been frequent in the Early Church, for
Justin feels it incumbent upon him to defend the argu
ment from prophecy against the charge of fatalism.

PROPHECY INTERPRETED AS PREDICTION 43
" But lest some suppose from what has been said by us
that we claim that whatever happens comes to pass by
a fatal necessity, this too we will explain. . . ." But the
explanation offered hardly amounts to more than an as
sertion of man's free will as necessary to a true doctrine
of moral responsibility. Where Justin goes beyond this
assertion he runs into a conditional view of prophecy
that would in the end nullify the value of the argument
as used by him (cf. Apol. 43 ff).
Finally the necessity which the Fathers were under of
accounting for the unfulfilled predictions witnesses,
negatively, to the importance attached to the predictive
theory of prophecy. The prophecies of Christ's exalta
tion gave special trouble in this connection. But this
difficulty was solved, as we have seen, by Justin, and
following him by Tertullian, by the theory of the two
advents. Thus, in the express definitions of prophecy, in the
insistence upon the sign-theory of prophecy, and in the
charges which the Fathers were compelled to meet of
fatalism and non-fulfilment, we can see how the entire
emphasis fell upon the predictive element.
II
But the extent to which the predictive theory of
prophecy was carried is even more startlingly illustrated
by the kind of instances of prediction and fulfilment
adduced by the Fathers than by the statements of prin
ciple cited in the foregoing.
The so-called Messianic Psalms are regularly re
ferred directly and exclusively to Christ. Their his
torical backgrounds are expressly denied or ignored.

44 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Ps. 24 does not refer to Solomon or to Hezekiah, but
" to our Christ alone." That none of the things men
tioned in Ps. 72 happened to Solomon " is evident."
Ps. no cannot refer to Hezekiah, as the Jews held,
but to "our Jesus." Similarly Pss. 45, 47, 99 are
unhesitatingly referred to Christ. The application of
Ps. 96 to Christ is defended by Justin against Trypho's
correct contention that it refers to God. The tenth verse
of this psalm was a special bone of contention. The
Septuagint reads : " Tell ye among the nations the Lord
reigneth from the wood." " From the wood " is not
found in the Hebrew text, and accordingly Justin accuses
the Jews of having deleted this signal prophecy of the
cross from their Bibles. Tertullian vehemently urges
this passage against Marcion : " I want to know what
you understand by it. Perhaps you think some wooden
king of the Jews is meant and not Christ who overcame
death by his sufferings on the cross and thence reigned."
" The whole of Ps. 22 refers to Christ, ... It con
tains the entire passion of Christ " (Justin and Tertul
lian). On the basis of this view of the Psalms a wealth
of Christian material is acquired by the Fathers, and
they prove out of the Psalms the preexistence and deity
of Christ (God in the royal Psalms being identified with
the Messiah) and utilize the various statements in them
as predictions of the incarnation, passion and exaltation
of Christ.
In connection with the Incarnation and Virgin Birth
the following passages are employed again and again:
Is. 53:8 (Who shall declare his generation) refers to
Christ's mysterious origin. " No one who is of men has
a descent that cannot be declared " (Justin and Irenaeus).
In Gen. 49: n, the reference to the blood of the grape

PROPHECY INTERPRETED AS PREDICTION 45
is evidently designed, " because Christ has blood not from
the seed of men but from the power of God. For as God
and not man has produced the blood of the vine, so also
[the Logos] has signified that the blood of Christ would
not be of human generation, but of the power of God "
(Justin and Tertullian). The stone cut out without
hands, Dan. 2 : 34, also signifies that Christ's birth was
not due to the will of man but of God (Justin). Of
course the interpretation of Is. 7: 14, combined with
8: 4, is a matter of special moment in the early apologetic
literature. The incorrect LXX reading at 8 : 4 was un
hesitatingly followed ("For before the child shall know
how to cry my father and mother, he [that is, the child]
shall take away the riches of Damascus and the spoil of
Samaria before the King of Assyria"), and it was as
sumed that the boy in 8 : 4 was identical with the boy
in 7 : 14. Hence Justin argues against Trypho that the
boy, Immanuel, could not have been Hezekiah, for Heze
kiah never did what is predicted of the boy in 8:14.
Tertullian elaborates this argument with his usual hot
invective and stinging irony against Marcion's similar
contentions : " Those who hold to a warrior Christ
[namely at 8 : 4] should examine the age, which does not
admit of a reference to a man, much less to a warrior,
although, to be sure, he might be about to call to arms
by his cry as an infant, might be about to sound the
alarm, not with a trumpet but with a rattle, might be
about to seek his foe, not on horseback or in a chariot
or from a parapet, but from a nurse's neck or nursemaid's
back, and so be destined to subjugate Damascus and
Samaria from his mother's breasts." Having de
molished an historical interpretation of the passage in
this drastic fashion, Tertullian proceeds to interpret the

46 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
riches of Damascus of the offerings of the Magi, and the
spoils of Samaria of the Magi themselves, Samaria being
a symbol of idolatry from which they were rescued, while
the King of Assyria represented Herod.
It is over the Passion that the prophetic shadows most
thickly gather. Dt. 33: 13-17 (the blessing of Joseph)
is a favorite Messianic passage, and v. 17, especially, is
interpreted of the cross. " No one," according to Jus
tin, " could say that the horns of an unicorn represent
any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the
cross." The elaboration of the interpretation is found
most interestingly expressed by Tertullian. Joseph
" was not of course designated as a mere unicorn with
its one horn or a minotaur with two, but Christ was indi
cated in him, a bullock in respect of both his character
istics, to some as severe as a judge, to others as gentle
as a savior, whose horns are the extremities of the cross.
For of the antennae which are a part of the cross, the ends
are called horns, while the midway stake of the whole
frame is called the unicorn. By this virtue, then, of his
cross, and in this manner horned, he is now both pushing
all nations through faith, bearing them away from earth
to heaven, and will then push them through judgment,
casting them down from heaven to earth."
Is. 65 : 2 is regularly interpreted as symbolic of the
cross. Ps. 22 is expounded verse by verse of Christ's
humiliation. Of course v. 16 in its LXX text was espe
cially insisted upon. No one among the Jews ever suf
fered in this peculiar way but Jesus, and hence it must
refer to him (Justin, Tertullian). Besides the usual in
terpretations of v. 1 of Christ's cry on the cross, of vss.
7, 8 of the derision hurled at him, and v. 16 of the cruci
fixion itself, we have the following additional examples

PROPHECY INTERPRETED AS PREDICTION 47
furnished by Justin. V. 9 (my hope from the womb
of my mother, according to the LXX) refers to his de
liverance in his infancy from Herod; v. 15 to Christ's
silence in Pilate's judgment hall; v. 12 to the band that
arrested Jesus; v. 13, combined with Hos. 10: 6 (LXX),
to the fact that Pilate sent Jesus bound to Herod; v. 14
to the bloody sweat; v. 21 (the horns of the unicorn) to
the cross again, etc.
In the collection of correspondences between the
Prophets and Jesus at the end of Tertullian's argument
(Against Marcion, IV. 41-43) we find the following:
Is. 29: 13 refers to the kiss of Judas. " The Christ of
the Prophets was destined to be betrayed with a kiss for
he was the son of him who was honored with the lips
by the people." The darkness of the sixth hour is fore
shadowed in Is. 50 : 3 and Amos 8 : 9. The " happy
man " of Ps. i is Joseph of Arimathea. " It was
very meet that the man who buried the Lord should thus
be noticed in prophecy." ..." Prophecy again does not
omit the office of the women who resorted before day
break to the sepulchre," and Hos. 5: 16-6:2 is cited in
proof of this statement. Tertullian asks concerning the
word of institution — this is my body — "but why call
his body bread and not rather a melon, which Marcion
must have had in lieu of a heart. He [Marcion] did not
understand how ancient was this figure of the body of
Christ, who said of himself by Jeremiah (n: 19) , " I was
like a lamb or ox that was brought to the slaughter and I
knew not that they had devised a device against me, say
ing, Let us cast the tree upon the bread [a corrupted read
ing of the LXX], which means of course the cross upon
his body." The wine as symbol of the blood and of the
passion is prefigured in Is. 63 : 1 ff. and " more clearly

4§ PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
still" in Gen. 49:9-12, "Christ being delineated in the
person of the patriarch." This last passage is a favorite
with Justin. The chronological question raised by v. 10
was especially debated by him. V. na was of course
fulfilled at the time of Christ's entrance into Jerusalem,
but further as " the unharnessed colt was a symbol of the
Gentiles, even so the harnessed ass was a symbol of your
[Trypho's] nation [the point is that the Jews are under
the yoke of the law]. The garments washed in wine
symbolize the believers cleansed by the blood of Christ's
passion." We have already seen how the divinity of
Christ was proved by Justin from the blood of the grape.
Ps. 2 is also directly Messianic, predicting the con
spiracy against Christ by Herod and Pilate, and Is. 53
of course is, with Ps. 22, the prophecy of the passion most
frequently relied upon.
Of the same character as the foregoing are the proph
ecies of Christ's exaltation, or of the two advents. Ps.
3:5(1 laid me down and slept, I awaked for the Lord
sustained me), and Is. 53 : 9 (His burial has been taken
away from the midst), are prophecies of the resurrec
tion. Ps. 24 is a prophecy of the exaltation of Christ,
but also implies his humiliation, as the question, " Who
is this king of glory?" clearly indicates. Christ was
at first unrecognizable because of his uncomely appear
ance. Ps. no: 7 refers to the advent of humiliation in
the first clause, " he shall drink of the brook in the way,"
and the advent of glory in the second clause, " therefore
shall he lift up his head ! " Ps. 72 of course refers to
Christ's exaltation.
The prophetic type as distinct from the specific predic
tion is found everywhere in the Old Testament by the
Fathers. The distinction between them comes out in an

PROPHECY INTERPRETED AS PREDICTION 49
interesting way in Justin's interpretation of Ex. 17. Ex.
17:16, God will wage war against Amalek with con
cealed hand (LXX), is a direct prophecy of the first
advent in which " the concealed power of God is in
Christ the crucified." On the other hand Moses' out
stretched hands supported by Aaron and Hur are a type
of the cross, while Joshua who led the fight is a type of
the name Jesus. The brazen serpent is a favorite sym
bol of the crucifixion; similarly the paschal lamb which
was " roasted and dressed up in the form of a cross, for
one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts
up to the head, and one across the back." Rahab's
scarlet thread is a favorite symbol of the blood of the
passion, and the two goats of the day of atonement (Lev.
16) typify the two advents. As illustrations of the
length to which the Fathers might go in their hunt for
types, two catenae may be cited from Justin and Ter
tullian. Justin finds the cross typified by the tree of
life, by the rod of Moses, by Jacob's wands, by Aaron's
rod which budded, by the tree where God appeared to
Abraham at Mamre, by the rod and staff of the Twenty-
third Psalm, by the stick cast by Eiisha into the water
which made the axe swim, and by the rod that pointed
out Judah to be the father of Tamar's sons. The wooden
ark which saved Noah may also be included here. Ter
tullian propounds the question why there were just
twelve Apostles and not some other number and answers
it as follows : " In truth I might from this very point
conclude of my Christ that he was foretold, not only by
the words of the prophets, but by the indication of the
facts [i.e. the historical types], for of this number I find
figurative hints running up and down the Creator's dis
pensation in the twelve springs of Elim, in the twelve

50 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
gems of Aaron's priestly garment, in the twelve stones
appointed by Joshua, the Apostles being thus prefigured
as springs watering the gentile world, as gems shedding
their luster upon the church's robe, as stones massive in
their faith." After this explanation he triumphantly
exclaims, " What equally good defense of such a number
has Marcion's Christ to show ? " and he concludes the
whole passage with the challenge, " Will not such a
Christ be [the Christ] of the prophets ? " From the
above instances of alleged prediction which it is believed
are fairly typical, as well as from their statements of
principles, it is clear how much weight the Fathers at
tached to the argument from prophecy. Prediction is
the great function of the prophet and accordingly pre
dictions are found everywhere, " up and down the cre
ator's dispensation."

CHAPTER III
THE EXEGETICAL METHOD IN THE PATRISTIC ARGUMENT
FROM PROPHECY : THE ALLEGORY
If the examples of prediction and fulfilment cited in
the preceding chapter be carefully examined it is obvious
that in conducting the argument from prophecy the
Fathers almost totally disregarded the historical sense of
the prophecies, i.e. the sense which they must have had
both for those who originally uttered them and for those
who first heard them. Both the historical occasions out
of which the prophecies arose and the meaning which
they must have had in their contexts were ignored, and
only because they were ignored could those multitudinous
correspondences between prophecy and fulfilment be es
tablished which were so convincing to the minds of the
Fathers. For they were convincing, there is no question of that.
The passage just cited from Tertullian shows how seri
ously they took the argument from these analogies which
seem to us so fanciful. How could this be? Why
could they appeal with such confidence to arguments that
seem to us almost puerile ? This question leads us to the
next stage in our discussion. The exegetical method
utilized by the Fathers to secure such astonishing results
is the allegorical or mystical or spiritualizing (pneumatic)
method.1 1 The terms " allegorical," "' mystical " and " pneumatic " are
used in what follows as practically synonymous.
Si

52 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
This mystical or allegorical method of interpreting the
prophecies is but the specific application to them of the
general method of interpretation by which the Early
Church was enabled to construe the Old Testament as a
Christian document. If we would understand the sub
sequent developments in the history of the interpretation
of prophecy, it is necessary at this point to consider at
some length what may be called the philosophy of the
method and the extent to which it was employed in those
days, not only in the Christian Church, but among Jews
and Gentiles as well.

There are two prime conditions out of which the
mystical method of exegesis has always arisen. When
a nation or a sect possesses sacred books which are
regarded as inspired, there is invariably the conviction
that the meaning of these books does not lie merely
on the surface, but that the simplest words contain,
through the immediate operation of God's spirit, pro
fundities of meaning which can only be fathomed by
spiritual processes. The mystical method of exegesis,
which does not stop at the literal and historical sense of
a passage, has always been the most effective means for
eliciting the spiritual mysteries that are supposed to lie
behind the letter of an inspired document. The mysti
cal method is thus naturally resorted to for purposes of
edification. Again, when such a document originates,
as is usually the case, in a remote era, it almost always
contains difficulties for those who live long subsequent
to the time of its origin, due to the changed conditions
of life and thought. If such a document is to retain its

PRINCIPLES OF THE ALLEGORY 53
canonical authority as inspired Scripture, these difficulties
must be removed. Again the mystical method furnishes
the readiest means to this end. It is instinctively resorted
to not only for edification but for apologetic purposes.
In a very interesting passage in his work on Christian
Doctrine, Augustine quite explicitly recognizes the con
ditions just posited for the rise of the allegory. He
says : " As men are prone to estimate sins, not by refer
ence to their inherent sinfulness but rather by reference
to their own customs, it frequently happens that a man
will think nothing blamable except what the men of his
own country and time are accustomed to condemn and
nothing worthy of praise or approval except what is
sanctioned by the custom of his contemporaries, and thus
it comes to pass that if Scripture either enjoins what is
opposed to the custom of the hearers or condemns what
is not opposed, and if at the same time the authority of
the Word has a hold upon their minds, they think that
the expression is figurative." Augustine illustrates his
point by the case of a man " who has embraced the life
of celibacy and made himself a eunuch for the kingdom
of heaven's sake . . . and hence contends that the com
mandments in Scripture about loving and ruling a wife
are not to be taken literally but figuratively." The writ
ings of the Fathers are full of this method of argumen
tation. In his interpretation of the two goats in Lev. 16
as the two advents, Justin takes occasion to express his
theories of interpreting Scripture. He charges the Jews
with " expounding these things in a low way and of
imputing much weakness to God when they listen to
these things thus barely and do not investigate the force
of the things uttered." In other words, it is derogatory
to God and a misapprehension of the real meaning of

54 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Scripture to take it only literally. He continues : " But
if your teachers only expound to you why female camels
are spoken of in this passage and not in that, or why so
many measures of fine flour and so many measures of oil
are used in the offerings, and so [expound] in a low and
sordid manner, while they never . . . expound the points
that are great and worthy of investigation, . . . will they
not deserve the condemnation of the Lord Jesus who said
unto them: ' Whited sepulchres, which appear beautiful
outwardly and within are full of dead men's bones, which
pay tithe of mint and swallow a camel, ye blind guides ' "
[note the play on Mt. 23 : 27, 23 f ] . He goes on to
blame the Jews for discussing why an " a " was added
to Abraham's name and an "r" to Sarah's (compare
the LXX), but who pay no attention to the change of
Oshea's name to Joshua (Jesus), (compare Nu. 13: 16).
" Therefore Christ has escaped their notice." He then
gives a most elaborate, mystical explanation of Joshua
as a type of Christ. To understand these mysteries a
spiritual gift is of course necessary. From Justin's ex
positions various canons for eliciting the spiritual mean
ing can be deduced. (1) If a statement of Scripture in
its literal sense contradicts another statement of Scrip
ture, it must have a mystical sense. For example, the
setting up of a brazen serpent contradicts the command
against graven images ; hence the brazen serpent must be
a type. (2) If a thing is unnatural or improbable it is
to be interpreted typically. At the battle of Amalek,
Moses sat while he prayed with outstretched hands.
The sitting posture in a prayer of supplication is un
natural. Hence Moses in this position was a type of
the cross. (3) Whatever would be immoral if taken
literally must of course be figurative. Thus the polyg-

PRINCIPLES OF THE ALLEGORY '55
amy of the Patriarchs lends itself admirably to the
mystical exegesis. " The Jewish teachers never look at
the divine motive which prompted each act, but only at
the corrupting passions." (4) Things unworthy of
God must be resolved into types. This may be inferred
from Justin's treatment of the ritual. He has little use
for the ritual as letter. As a philosopher he cannot be
lieve that God has any real interest in the ceremonial;
hence his allegorizing of it. (5) Statements in the
prophecies and Psalms which, according to Justin, cannot
be explained of any historical person must therefore re
fer to Christ. Ps. 72, for example, cannot refer to
Solomon, " since none of the things mentioned in the
psalm refer to him "; accordingly it must refer to Jesus.
The justification of the allegorical method of interpret
ing the Scripture, which is more or less implicit in Justin,
is explicit in Origen, who attempted to give to the allegory
a scientific elaboration. In the fourth book of his De
Principiis he discusses the two points of the inspiration
and interpretation of the Scriptures in their immediate
connection with each other and shows how we are to
expect to find profound and mystical meanings in an
inspired writing. He elaborates a threefold meaning of
Scripture corresponding to body, soul and spirit. The
spiritual meaning is of course the all-important mean
ing. All Scripture has this spiritual meaning, though
only parts of it have the corporeal meaning, i.e. while
only certain statements can be taken literally, all must
be taken allegorically. Such a position permits him to
make the most drastic sort of criticisms upon the letter
of Scripture. Much of the law of Moses, taken literally,
becomes for Origen impossible or absurd. The incest
of Lot's daughters, the polygamy of the Patriarchs, the

56 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
tricks of Jacob, the details of the tabernacle, the gen
ealogies, are all unworthy subjects of divine revelation if
taken literally. How irrational is it to forbid the eating
of vultures when no one would ever think of eating them
any way. On the other hand when the law commands
to offer a " goat-stag," 1 this is a command to do the
impossible since no such animal ever existed, etc. It
may be remarked in passing that Origen carried the full
apparatus of the allegorical method over into the New
Testament also.
But it must not be supposed that a method of exegesis
which seems to us so utterly arbitrary and unconvincing
was adopted by the Fathers in any capricious or irre
sponsible spirit. In the use of this method they showed
themselves to be true children of their own age. In
order to do justice to them it is therefore necessary to set
this method of exegesis in its proper historical perspec
tive. This is also necessary to do in order to understand
the full significance of the subsequent developments and
to draw from them the necessary inferences with refer
ence to our own attitude toward the interpretation of
prophecy. II
The Fathers availed themselves of the mystical method
of interpreting Scripture and applied it specifically to the
interpretation of prophecy because it was the recognized
method in their day of interpreting sacred documents.
The Fathers were no doubt influenced to some extent
by the methods of interpreting the Old Testament in
vogue among the Jewish rabbis. The written law was
1 Origen here follows the LXX translation of a word found only
in Dt. 14:

THE ALLEGORY IN JEWISH INTERPRETATION '57
theoretically the Canon of the Jews, their great dogmatic
authority. But there had grown up in the course of time
the oral law, the paradosis, or " Tradition," of the New
Testament, intended partly to accommodate the written
law to the changed conditions of Jewish life, partly to
unfold, as it was believed, the fuller meaning of the
written law. The rabbinic exegesis grew up to meet a
great dogmatic necessity. It must vindicate the oral
tradition out of the written Law. This exegesis pre
served the semblance of a literalistic interpretation of
Scripture, but it was oftentimes almost as unhistorical
as the mystical interpretation itself. But it was not this
exegesis which influenced the Fathers to any great extent.
The roots of the patristic exegesis must be looked for in
another direction. They go back to the philosophic and
apologetic exegesis of Alexandrine Judaism, which in
turn is rooted in the exegetical method of the Greeks,
more particularly of the Stoics. In the rabbinic exege
sis there was little or no attempt to adapt the Old Testa
ment to changed philosophical or ethical conceptions.
Difficulties in the practical application of the Law were
no doubt felt, as is illustrated in the regulations adopted
for the Release year, but in general, Palestinian Judaism
still lived and moved and had its being in the Law.
They still had a sense for the meaning of its letter. But
the Hellenistic Jews, who were at all acquainted with
philosophy, were in a different position. Their problem
was to recommend their Scriptures to the Greek and at
the same time to explain to themselves the peculiarities
in it which were forced into bold relief upon the back
ground of the Greek philosophic thought with which they
had become acquainted. This was a most formidable
problem, indeed. The Old Testament was distinctly an

58 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
oriental book. Its world of thought and feeling was
entirely out of touch with the Hellenic world. The
Semitic and the Greek intellect were as unlike as the
languages in which each found expression. The anthro
pomorphic conception of God in the Old Testament,
which gave difficulty even to the later Palestinian Jew,
would present an almost insurmountable difficulty to the
Greek philosopher, whose idea of God was a ™ 'ov, an
" absolute." How was this literary product of a so
totally different civilization to be adjusted to the de
mands of Hellenic culture?
This was the problem which Alexandrian Judaism set
itself to solve. It did it by means of the allegorical
method of interpretation. By this method it was pos
sible to explain the Old Testament in terms of Greek
philosophy. The Jewish thinker who sums up in him
self in typical form all that Alexandrian Judaism stood
for in this connection is Philo of Alexandria. Thor
oughly trained in Greek philosophy and enamored of it,
and at the same time a devout Jew and a firm believer in
the inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, he set himself
the task of reconciling these two systems of thought and
experience so alien to each other. He did this by the
thoroughgoing application to the Old Testament of the
mystical method of exegesis which he had borrowed from
the Greeks themselves. It will be necessary, therefore
to look briefly at the origin and employment of the alle
gory among the Greeks.

THE ALLEGORY IN GREEK INTERPRETATION 59
III1
In the earliest expression of religious feeling among
the Greeks imagination rather than morals was the most
influential factor. The Greek imagination looked out
upon a wonder world. Nature for him was personal, all
its powers were personified. This was the age of myth-
making. The world was full of gods and demi-gods and
heroic personages, all of whom had a most real existence
for the Greek — this most attractive child-man of the
ancient world. In these myths all his patriotism and
religion, all his poetry and art, found expression. The
myth was the most characteristic product of the Greek
mind. It was the rerum divinarum et humanarum
scientia. If the myth was " the popularized expression
of the divine and heroic faith of the people," as Grote
calls it, the religion of the Greeks, the epic poetry of
Homer and Hesiod, particularly of Homer, as the literary
deposit of these myths, was to all intents and purposes
the Greek Bible. This fact was recognized by Herodotus,
as Athenagoras points out in the seventeenth chapter of
his Plea for the Christians. Again all the poets were
supposed to be inspired, Homer especially. Homer was
at the basis of all Greek culture and religion. His epics
were the text-books of education in the grammar schools
and the great repositories of moral truth. As time went
on the myths and Homer did not lose their hold upon the
Greek mind, but became more and more ingrained in his
consciousness. They were a part of his intellectual fur-
1 For the material in this section the following works have been
especially consulted : Grote, History of Greece, Vol. I, Chap. 16 ;
Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Peripatetics, English trans., Chap.
XIII; Hatch, Influence of Greek Ideas, etc., The Hibbert Lectures
for 1888; Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien.

60 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
niture, just as the Bible up to the last quarter of a cen
tury has been a part of our mental equipment. Any
allusion to them could count on being understood, just
as with us the use of a Bible phrase or figure could count
upon an intelligent response. And any real or apparent
attack upon the myths was resented by the average
Greek as impious. It was because the Athenians thought
that Socrates undermined faith in them that they con
demned him to death. But as time went on the Greek
intellect developed. Instead of the child looking forth
with wide-eyed wonder upon the beautiful world in
which he found himself, imagining every river to be the
haunt of some nymph, every mountain the seat of some
divinity, there arose the scientist, the historian, the phi
losopher. Thales, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, of the sixth
century b. c, laid the foundations of natural . science.
The people of the Homeric age had personalized nature;
natural phenomena were the result of the personal will
of the deities. These scientists for the first time intro
duced the idea of the impersonality of nature and thus
made possible the accurate observation of its laws.
These were something that now became calculable and
not dependent upon the caprice of an offended or placated
deity. For the first time the idea of phusis was intro
duced and the word kosmos gained a new meaning (an
ordered world). With Herodotus and Thucydides the
historical sense began to develop. Their minds were
trained to observe and catalogue the actions of their con
temporaries, or of men like themselves who had lived
before them. In philosophy, as for example in the teach
ings of Socrates, Plato and the Stoics, we find a higher
ethical standard developing. To all these points of view
the popular religion of mythology and the people's Bible,

THE ALLEGORY IN GREEK INTERPRETATION 6 1
Homer, presented the gravest difficulties. What could a
natural scientist, who looks upon nature as impersonal,
make of a dryad- and a naiad-haunted world? What
could an historian, accustomed to test statements by sci
entific evidence and to observe the actual facts of the
life about him, do with the incredibilities of the Homeric
myths and legends ? What attitude could a moralist as
sume toward the stories of the wars, the cruelty, the in
trigues and licentiousness of the gods? Here we have
the same problem arising in these early times to which
Augustine refers in the passage cited above. Given an
ancient religion deposited in an inspired document, how
can it be harmonized with the inevitably changing life
and thought of the people which accepts it? This prob
lem of the reconciliation of advancing culture with tradi
tional religion became one of the chief fields for the exer
cise of Greek thought. Some thinkers contented them
selves with a mild criticism of the ancient standards, ton
ing down as best they could what was objectionable.
Thus Pindar protests against the story that Pelops had
been murdered by his father and served up at table and
regards the narrative as a fabrication. .Eschylus and
Sophocles allow themselves even greater liberties in the
way of moralizing the myths. Sometimes text-emenda
tions were resorted to in order to avoid difficulties. It
is significant of the changed ethical feeling of later times
that Euripides was blamed for introducing into his
tragedies the illicit passions of Phaedra. His enemies
admitted the truth of the story, but held that it ought to
be kept out of the public view, just as Plato in his Repub
lic would exclude the myths from the curriculum of the
schools.1 Others were bolder still and openly attacked
1 Compare our own omission of certain passages in the Old Tes
tament from public reading.

62 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Homer as immoral. Xenophanes of the sixth century,
founder of the Eleatic school, said, " All things which
are hateful and censurable among men, Homer and
Hesiod attributed to the gods." But the majority of
even the thinkers among the Greeks considered it impious
to go to such lengths. While daring to criticize this or
that detail in the traditional mythology, they accepted
the system as a whole and sought to avoid its difficulties
in other ways. Two methods were employed. The first
was that of rationalistic exegesis. This was the attempt
to explain the myths as ordinary history, and has a strik
ing analogy in the methods applied to the Bible by the so-
called Vulgar Rationalism of the eighteenth and the be
ginning of the nineteenth centuries. The first trace of
this method seems to be found in Heraclitus of Miletus
(the sixth century b. c), who rationalized Cerberus into
a great serpent which dwelt in a cave on Cape Taenarus.
Thucydides rationalized the Trojan War, treating it in
much the same way as he did the Peloponnesian War in
his own day. Euhemerus (about 300 b. c) was one of
the main exponents of this rationalistic exegesis, from
whom it gained the name of Euhemerism, and it was
followed in varying degrees by Polybius, Strabo, Diodo-
rus and Pausanias, though Diodorus makes the pious
confession that " we show our reverence to the god by
acquiescing in the incredibilities of his history " — an atti
tude which finds its counterpart in the attitude of very
many persons toward Old Testament narratives at the
present time. Polybius, for example, rationalizes ^Eolus
into a man skilled in navigation and a good weather
prophet, Scylla and Charybdis into pirates in the straits
of Messina. Grote, from whom most of these illustra
tions are taken, also quotes from a certain PalaephatUS

THE ALLEGORY IN GREEK INTERPRETATION 63
of unknown date, possibly of the third century b. c, who
interprets the dragon which Cadmus killed as a king of
Thebes named Draco; the dragon's teeth are elephant's
teeth which the rich Phoenician, Cadmus, had brought
with him. The sons of Draco sold these teeth and em
ployed the proceeds to levy troops with !
The second method, and the one more generally em
ployed, by which to avoid the difficulties of the myths for
later times was the allegorical interpretation. To meet
the charges of immorality brought against the myths by
Xenophanes, Theagnis of Rhegium (about 520 b. c.)
developed the idea of a double sense in Homer and
Hesiod, the literal sense and the spiritual sense behind
the letter. This idea was taken up by Anaxagoras and
Metrodorus in the next century. There were two main
classes of the allegory, the ethical and the physical. The
latter was the broader in its scope and embraced the
nature of the gods, of the soul and of the world. In
Anaxagoras the allegory was more ethical; Zeus repre
sented the mind; Athena, art, etc. Metrodorus seems
to have especially developed the physical allegory. For
him the gods and heroes were the symbols of the forces
of nature. All physical science was found in Homer.
" Homer," says Plutarch, " is the first to philosophize in
ethics and physics," and Cicero tells us in De Natura
Deorum II. 24 that " physical meaning is not inelegantly
included in impious fables " [the myths] . Thus the doc
trine that all things originated from water was based on
the Homeric line, " Ocean, the genesis of gods, and
Tethys, their mother." The contrary doctrine of Hera-
clitus that fire was the formative principle was also sup
ported by Homer, who makes Hephaestus prepare the
shield of Achilles, the symbol of the world. The proof

64 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
of the Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of
souls was found in the fact that Achilles and Hector
talked with their horses or in the recognition of
Odysseus by his faithful dog. This allegorical method
of treating Homer and Hesiod was especially elaborated
by the Stoics, who seem, according to Zeller, to have
borrowed it from the Cynics. They carried it to such
lengths that Cicero jokingly says : " The ancient poets
might be thought to have been Stoics though they never
dreamed of these things." As the Hellenistic Jews were
especially influenced by Stoic thought, it was very natural
for Philo to utilize the Stoic method of interpretation
for his own purposes.
There was also another factor which contributed to
the establishment of this method of interpretation, and
that was the growth of the mystery religions. Religion
becomes in a way an aristocratic affair, the privilege
of the few. Only the initiates could enter into its higher
truths. Hence the poets were supposed to veil their
philosophies and ethical truths purposely in symbols in
order that the common people might not desecrate them.
In Heraclides (not to be confounded with Heraclitus)
and Cornutus, two Stoic writers of uncertain date, but
possibly belonging to the first century a. d., we find the
classical allegory reaching its culmination. The apolo
getic interest in the method is seen in the statement
of Heraclides that " Homer would be immoral if he were
not allegorized," and again he says that " the allegory
is the antidote to impiety," with which may be compared
the statement of Sallust that " the mind must see at
once that the facts as told [the allusion is to the im
moralities of Homer] are not to be taken as being them
selves real truth, but are simply a veil." Accordingly

THE ALLEGORY IN GREEK INTERPRETATION 65
the story of Ares, Hephaestus and Aphrodite is a picture
of iron subdued by fire, and hence " there is no stain of
unholy fables in his (Homer's) words; they are pure
and free of all impiety." * According to Cornutus,
Prometheus, chained to the rock and with his liver
perpetually gnawed by vultures, is a picture of a man
" chained to the painful necessities of life and gnawed
by petty cares." An anonymous writer of a somewhat
later date wrote a treatise entitled, " A short essay on
the wanderings of Odysseus in Homer, worked out in
conjunction with ethical reflections and rectifying what
is rotten in the story as well as may be for the benefit
of readers." The wanderings are interpreted as the
trials and temptations of human life. Scylla and
Charybdis represent the temptations which arise from
the mind and the body, respectively, between which we
are called upon to steer. The sirens are the alluring
pleasures of life, against which the mind must be filled
with divine words, as the ears of Odysseus were filled
with wax. In view of such illustrations the sarcasm of
Seneca is justified : " Some make Homer a Stoic, others
an Epicurean, others a Peripatetic, others an Academian ;
nothing of these [schools] appears to be in him because
all are in him." 2
But if the Greeks could so lose their sense of the orig
inal meaning of their ancient literature and therefore be
tempted to accommodate its various concrete details by
means of the allegory to the intellectual and moral con
ceptions of a later and more advanced civilization, it
1 We are at once reminded of Irenaeus's treatment of the incest
of Lot's daughters.
2 Those who have sought to discover in the first chapter of Genesis
inspired evidence for prevailing scientific theories will come under a
like condemnation.

66 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
need not surprise us to find the same method employed
by the philosophically trained Alexandrine Jews in their
treatment of the Old Testament. Among them the
motives for the allegory mentioned by Augustine
operated in their greatest intensity. On the one hand
the Alexandrine Jews, especially Philo, had the highest
possible theory of verbal inspiration, and it may be laid
down as a general rule that the resort to allegory is pro
portioned to the degree of inspiration attributed to a
book. On the other hand no greater contrast can be
imagined than that between the Old Testament in its
historical sense and Greek philosophical speculation.
Hence the need of the allegory, by which the Old Testa
ment could be resolved into Greek philosophy, was im
perative.. Philo, it must also be remembered, in whom
the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament finds
its chief Jewish exponent, was especially influenced by
the Stoics among whom this method was particularly
cultivated. By means of the allegory the Old Testament
had become a text-book of Greek philosophy. By the
same means why could it not become a Christian book?
IV
When the Early Church was confronted with the
problem of interpreting the Old Testament as a Christian
document, it is evident from what has just been said that
they had the exegetical method by which this could be
accomplished ready at hand. The allegorical method
was the recognized method of interpreting sacred books
and had already been applied on a great scale by Philo
to the interpretation of the Old Testament. It is true
that the Christians were blamed even in their own day

THE ALLEGORY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 67
for resorting to the allegory. Celsus sneers at the moral
difficulties of the Old Testament and accuses Jews and
Christians alike " of taking refuge in allegory because
they were ashamed of these things." But the Christians
could retort in kind. Tatian accuses Metrodorus of
" very foolishly turning everything into allegory " in
his interpretations of Homer, and Origen replies to the
sneer of Celsus at Christian allegorizing that the Greeks
practiced the same method, and he adduces an instance
of how Chrysippus of Soli, " an ornament of the Stoic
sect," attempted to allegorize an immoral picture at
Samos of Jupiter and Juno. These mutual recrimina
tions are explained by the fact that the allegorical method
proceeds on the assumption of the inspiration of the
document which is allegorized, and the pagan and the
Christian did not recognize the inspiration of each other's
Scriptures. At this point the fundamental weakness of
the method begins to emerge, of which more will be
said in a moment.
But enough has been presented to show that in adopt
ing the allegorical or mystical method of interpretation
the Fathers cannot be properly accused of arbitrariness
or folly. It would have been a most amazing thing
if they had not done so, as may be seen from the follow
ing considerations. As has already been observed, the
Old Testament was at first the only canon in the
Christian Church. The New Testament writings only
gradually acquired canonical dignity. But the Canon of
the Christian Church must of course be Christian. Had
not the Lord and his Apostles received the Jewish
Scriptures, but would they have done so if these
Scriptures had not supported their teachings? To
believe the contrary was impossible. Again, the Church

68 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
had differentiated itself from Judaism. In doing this
and in becoming more and more a church of Gentile
converts it lost the power to appreciate the historical
meaning of the Old Testament to a degree impossible
for a Jew or even for a Jewish Christian who had not,
as in the case of Philo, become dominated by philosophic
prepossessions. Here, then, we have the two conditions
which we have seen invariably give rise to the allegory,
the possession of an inspired Scripture and the inability
to appreciate its original meaning. Lastly, and this is
of fundamental importance, the Fathers could cite as a
precedent and justification for their allegorical treatment
of the Old Testament the method followed by the New
Testament writers themselves. Tertullian, in introduc
ing his argument from prophecy, insists upon the
allegorical method in opposition to Marcion's literalistic
exegesis and cites Paul in support of it. " But why en
large upon such a subject, when the very Apostle whom
our heretics adopt [Marcion's interpretation of
Christianity was based in the main upon the Pauline
epistles] interpreted the Law which allows an unmuzzled
mouth to oxen as they tread out the corn, not of cattle
but of ourselves, and also alleges that the Rock which
followed [the Israelites] and supplied them with drink
was Christ, who taught the Galatians moreover that the
two narratives of the sons of Abraham had an allegorical
meaning . . . and gave to the Ephesians an intimation
that when it was declared in the beginning that a man
should leave his father and mother and become one flesh
with his wife, he applied this to Christ and his Church."
When Origen formulates the allegorical method in De
Principiis or defends it against the attacks of Celsus,
he relies upon these same passages. And were not the

THE ALLEGORY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 69
Fathers perfectly justified in adducing these New Testa
ment precedents? Granted that there is a very note
worthy difference in the extent to which the method was
applied by the New Testament writers and by their
successors, is there any fundamental difference in the
principles of their treatment of the Old Testament?
Granted the dignity and restraint with which the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews Christianizes the Old
Testament as compared with the frequent grotesqueness
and lack of restraint in the Epistle of Barnabas, or
granted the relative infrequency of the argument from
prophecy in Matthew as compared with the voluminous
expansion of this argument in Justin, again the ques
tion must be urged : Can any distinction in principle
be formulated? Is not the more moderate use of the
method in the New Testament due rather to the
aesthetic quality of refined and restrained feeling which
is so characteristic of the biblical writers? And when
for a moment this fine self-discipline is relaxed, as
in the case of the analogy between the three days and
nights of Jonah in the belly of the fish and the Lord's
death and resurrection (happily criticism has shown that
this is not to be attributed to Jesus himself), does not
the ease of this descent into the grotesque warn us that
the general difference is only one of degree, not of kind?
Must not the candid student admit that the New Testa
ment writers were in this matter also children of their
own age? Was not the mystical method of exegesis
the scientific method of interpreting an inspired
Scripture? Was not the Old Testament inspired for
them, and were they any more likely to understand its
original meaning than their contemporaries, and would
they, therefore, be any less likely to adapt its meaning

70 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
to their own needs by means of mystical interpretations
than the Greeks or the Alexandrine Jews who preceded
them or the Fathers who were to come after them?
Is inspiration a guaranty of historical knowledge or
scientific method? The reader is asked to ponder these
questions, for the answer to them is one of the hinges
upon which the argument of this essay turns. We have
now reached the point at which the meaning of all the
investigations thus far pursued begins to appear. We
have seen how the argument from prophecy in the sense
of prediction dominated the apologetic of the early church
in its struggle with Jew, Gentile and heretic. It was the
final proof of the Christian religion. We have seen how
the alleged correspondences between prediction and ful
filment, which were the heart of the argument from
prophecy, were established by the mystical or allegorical
method of expounding the Old Testament. We have
seen to what lengths the search for these correspondences
was carried. We have also seen that this method of
exposition was not an arbitrary method from the point
of view of those days, but a scientific method which had
already been applied by the Greeks to their sacred docu
ments and by the Jews to the Old Testament, and how
the Fathers instinctively followed the same method.
We have finally seen how the Fathers justified the
method by the practice of the New Testament writers
themselves and how this appeal to New Testament pre
cedent was a perfectly appropriate appeal. We have
next to notice the dogmatic consequences which follow
from the method by which the proof from prophecy was
conducted.

CHAPTER IV
THE ALLEGORICAL METHOD OF EXEGESIS AND
THE UNCERTAINTY OF INTERPRETATION
There are two consequences of the method by which
the Fathers conducted their argument from prophecy.
The first of these is the enigma theory of prophecy, as
it may be called; the second is the dilemma into which
their method of exegesis forced the Fathers in their de
bate with heretics.

When the entire emphasis falls upon the minute cor
respondence between prediction and fulfilment the real
meaning of the prophecy can of course be found only
in the fulfilment. But this means that most of the
prophecies must have been quite unintelligible to those
who originally heard them and even to those who
originally uttered them. In other words, a prophecy
remains an enigma until its fulfilment. The word
" enigma " is found but once in the New Testament
( I Cor. 13 : 12) and then in a connection which has noth
ing to do with prophecy, but it is a favorite word of the
Fathers to express their theory of prophecy. Is. 45 : 3
in the septuagintal text (I will give thee treasures, dark,
hidden) is the locus classicus of the theory. Comment
ing on the prophecy in Gen. 49 : 10 ff, Justin remarks :
" The Holy Spirit uttered these truths in parables and
71

72 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
in a veiled way." Commenting on Is. 7: 14 he says:
" Perhaps you are not aware, my friends, that there were
many sayings uttered in a veiled way and in parables
or mysteries or symbols which the prophets who lived
long afterward exegeted!" And again: "For if the
prophets declared obscurely that Christ should suffer
and thereafter be Lord of all, this could not be under
stood . . . until He Himself persuaded the Apostles
that such statements were expressly related in Scripture."
To similar effect Irenaeus : " For every prophecy before
its fulfilment is to man [full of] enigmas and
ambiguities." After the fulfilment, " the prophecies
have a clear and certain exposition." Dan. 12 : 4, 7, and
Jer. 23 : 20, are quoted in support of this view. In
noting the various characteristics of prophecy Tertullian
emphasizes the fact that " very many events are
figuratively predicted by means of enigmas and allegories
and parables and must be understood in a sense differ
ent from their literal description." In a remarkable
exposition of Luke 10: 21, the same writer seeks to show
that he who reveals these things (i.e. the Christ of the
New Testament) must have also previously concealed
them, and hence that the Christ who reveals is the same
as the Christ who is hidden in the prophecies of the Old
Testament. Marcion's God has produced nothing " in
which anything could have been hidden, no prophecies,
no parables, no visions, no arguments or words or names,
obscured by allegories or figures or cloudy enigmas."
So Marcion's God " will not now be the revealer since he
was not previously the concealer ... for He [the true
Christ] conceals [in the Old Testament] by his prepara
tory apparatus of prophetic obscurity, the understand
ing of which is open to faith, ' for if ye will not believe

THE ALLEGORY AND THE ENIGMA OF PROPHECY 73
ye shall not understand ' " [Is. 7: 9, another locus classi-
cus in this connection]. According to Origen also it
is a matter of general agreement that the prophecies
" are filled with enigmas and dark sayings." Clement
of Alexandria cites the following from the preaching
of Peter : " But we, unrolling the books of the prophets
which we possess who name Jesus Christ partly in
parables, partly in enigmas, partly expressly in so many
words. . . ." This enigma theory of prophecy which
seems so strange to us would not strike the Fathers as
being at all abnormal. They were familiar with the
pagan ideas of prophecy as expressed in the ambiguities
of the Delphic oracles and in the Sibyllines. In one
famous passage Clement of Alexandria draws an express
analogy between the heathen oracles and the Old Testa
ment oracles in this regard. " All who have spoken
of divine things, both Barbarians and Greeks, have veiled
the first principles of things and delivered the truth in
enigmas and symbols and allegories and metaphors and
such like tropes. . . . Such also are the oracles among
the Greeks. And the Pythian Apollo is called Loxias
[the allusion being to the supposed derivation of this
term from a root signifying oblique]. Also the maxims
among those Greeks who were called ' wise men ' indicate
in a few sayings the unfolding of matter of consider
able importance." Then after commenting upon several
of these sayings, such as " know thyself " and " spare
time," he continues : " And the spirit says by Isaiah
the Prophet: I will give thee treasures, hidden, dark."
It is quite clear that Clement places Isaiah in the same
category with the Pythian Apollo, and if the prophecies
of Isaiah or of the other prophets really did mean what
the Fathers supposed them to mean, the analogy which

74 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
is drawn between Hebrew and heathen prophets is amply
justified. The passage just quoted from Clement has
a more general application, however, in the connection
in which it stands than simply to prophecy. The Old
Testament as a whole is considered to be an enigma,
whose meaning is revealed to the initiated, the men of
deeper spiritual understanding. This line of thought
is especially cultivated by the Alexandrine theology,
which draws a distinction between faith and knowledge
and connects faith with the " bare letter " of Scripture
and knowledge (gnosis) with the spiritual meaning that
lies beneath the crust of the letter. At this point the
idea of mystery emerges in Christian theology. Let
Clement but lift for us the veil of blue and purple and
scarlet and fine-twined linen that hides the mysteries of
the tabernacle from the eyes of the profane and we
find ourselves adoring worshipers in a mystic sanctuary,
vast and solemn and full of hidden meaning as the uni
verse itself, whose variegated curtains are the primal
elements that contain the revelation of God, whose holy
place was the middlemost point of heaven and earth,
whose seven golden candlesticks to the south of the altar
of incense figured the motions of the seven planets that
perform their revolutions toward the south, whose sacred
ark signified the world of thought hidden to the many,
while the golden figures of the cherubim with twelve
outstretched wings point to the world of sense, their faces
a symbol of the rational soul, their wings the lofty
ministers and energies of powers, their names significant
of extensive knowledge, their voices sounding in the ear
of the ecstatic worshiper as a " delightsome glory in
ceaseless contemplation." But it would take us too far

THE DILEMMA OF THE FATHERS 75
afield to enter into a further amplification of this
fascinating theme. II
It is obvious that the enigma theory of prophecy and
the allegorical method stand in the closest relationship
to each other. It is by means of the spiritualizing
method of interpretation that the enigmas, the riddles,
are solved. But at this point a formidable difficulty
arises. How can one be sure that the right solution has
been discovered? Justin's simple principle that Christ
is the interpreter of prophecy can hardly support the
vast array of patristic correspondences between predic
tion and fulfilment which have been already noted. The
claim which Justin and the other Fathers, also, make,
that the apprehension of the true meaning of the
prophecies is a gift of the Spirit to faith, is not satis
factory. It might suffice for the individual, but would
have no value in debate, where one's spiritual illumina
tion might be denied by one's opponent. When the
historical sense of a passage is once abandoned, there is
wanting any sound regulative principle to govern
exegesis. The adoption of the allegorical method by
the Fathers was not arbitrary, but the method itself was
wholly arbitrary. And here we arrive at the dilemma
into which the patristic method of conducting the argu
ment from prophecy by means of the mystical exegesis
forced the Fathers. The mystical method of exegesis,
is an unscientific and arbitrary method, reduces the Bible
to obscure enigmas, undermines the authority of all
interpretation, and therefore, when taken by itself, failed
to meet the apologetic necessities of the time. The em-

76 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
barrassment which the mystical method occasioned the
Fathers is most apparent in the Gnostic and Marcionite
controversies. In the case of these heretics the two conditions noted
by Augustine for the rise of the allegory are most in
terestingly exemplified. In proportion as the Gnostics
rejected the Old Testament as an inspired canonical
authority, they rejected the allegory. Marcion in par
ticular, whose rejection of the Old Testament was ab
solute, adopted the baldest kind of literalistic interpreta
tion. On the other hand the New Testament was for
them nominally authoritative. Hence the Gnostics
allegorized it extensively. Marcion, it is true, appears
to have consistently rejected all allegories, but the differ
ence in this regard between himself and the Gnostics
is only a further confirmation of the reasons assigned
for the rise of the allegory. The Gnostics were specula
tive and philosophical, while Marcion's interests were in
tensely practical. Therefore the Gnostics were com
pelled to resort to the allegory in order to adapt the New
Testament to their peculiar theosophical tenets, whereas
Marcion was not subjected to this temptation. His
paramount religious interest enabled him to find satis
faction in the letter of the New Testament alone. Ac
cordingly, it is clear that in the case of the Gnostics,
at least, the allegorizing of the Old Testament was not
rejected on any scientific principle and, in fact, in the
less radical forms of Gnosticism, where the antagonism
to the Old Testament was not so pronounced, and divine
elements in it were admitted, there the allegory appeared
(compare the Valentinians), though not, be it observed,
in an apologetic interest.
Now the Fathers followed just the opposite course.

THE DILEMMA OF THE FATHERS jy
Since the Old Testament was the original Scripture
of the Christian Church and as such must be itself
Christian, it was allegorized. On the other hand, the
New Testament was not at first allegorized. There is
scarcely a trace of an allegorical interpretation of the
New Testament in the literature of the Apostolic Fathers
or the Greek Apologists. Irenaeus is the first orthodox
Christian writer in whom the allegorical treatment of
the New Testament begins to make itself felt. The
reasons for this failure to allegorize the New Testament
lay partly in the fact that it was not at first regarded
as Scripture in the same sense in which the Old Testa
ment was held to be Scripture, but more particularly in
the fact that it was not necessary for these writers to
allegorize it in order to make it intelligible to their
Christian consciousness. They had not become so far
removed as yet in time or thought from the writers of
the New Testament as to necessitate the adaptation of
the New Testament to their own views by means of the
allegory. In this respect the orthodox were more on a
footing with Marcion than with the Gnostics.1 We can
1 In the case of Clement and Origen, whose aim was to interpret
Christianity in the terms of Greek philosophy, just as Philo before
them had interpreted the Jewish religion in the same terms, the
allegorical treatment of the New Testament was a matter of course.
The dependence of the Alexandrine theologians in this connection
upon their great predecessor is immediate and of the closest pos
sible description. In view of the thesis of Augustine, so often al
luded to, the following harmless and beautiful allegory of a New
Testament passage is highly significant. Commenting upon the
anointing of Christ's feet Augustine says that no one would believe
that Christ permitted such an expenditure in a spirit of luxury and
wastefulness, " as profligate men are accustomed to have their feet
anointed at those banquets which we abhor [note the influence upon
interpretation of contemporary conditions]." This act must there
fore have a typical value. " The sweet odor means the good report

78 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
readily see what an impossible condition resulted
for any successful apologetic which should be based on
the interpretation of Scripture. The Fathers inter
preted the Old Testament allegorically, the New Testa
ment in the main historically. The Gnostics interpreted
the Old Testament in the main historically and the New
Testament allegorically. Marcion alone seems to have
possessed the merit of consistency in this respect, for he
interpreted both Testaments historically. Thus it comes
to pass that in the anti-Gnostic and anti-Marcionite
polemic we find the Fathers in one breath insisting upon
the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament and
in the next upon the historical interpretation of the New
Testament. Tertullian in arguing against Marcion in
troduces his proof from prophecy by citing Paul in justi
fication of the allegory (see above), an ad hominem ar
gument of considerable force, as Paul was the one author
ity which Marcion recognized. But when the same writer
is arguing against Valentinus, who allegorized both
Testaments to suit himself, he denounces the allegorical
method and contends that Valentinus is even more
dangerous than Marcion. " Marcion expressly and
openly uses the knife, not the pen, since he made such
an excision of Scripture as suited his own subject matter
[the allusion is to Marcion's reduction of the New
Testament Canon to ten Pauline Epistles and a mutilated
rescension of Luke] ; Valentinus, however, abstained
from such excision . . . yet he took away more and
added more by removing the proper meaning of every
particular word and adding fantastic arrangements of
which is earned by a life of good works and the man who wins this,
while following in Christ's footsteps, anoints his feet, so to speak,
with the precious ointment."

THE DILEMMA OF THE FATHERS 79
things which have no real existence." The context
shows that Tertullian has in mind the custom of piecing
together texts dislocated from their contexts in support
of a doctrine, a practice which he compares to that of
" the homeroccntones, collectors of Homeric odds and
ends, who stitch into one piece, patch-work fashion,
works of their own from the lines of Homer, out of
many scraps put together from this passage and that." 1
Yet the man who said this is guilty of the following
astounding exegetical sorites. Is. 40 : 9, Ps. 3 : 4 and
22 : 2 are cited as a compound prediction of the prayer
of Christ on the mountain at night : " You have a
mountain for the site, the night as the time, and the
sound of the voice and the audience of the Father; you
have the Christ of the Prophets ! " Nothing could better
illustrate than the juxtaposition of these two passages
from the same author the power which dogmatic pre
possession always exerts to inhibit clear and consistent
thinking. It will be clear from the foregoing that on the basis
of the allegorical method of interpretation, the Fathers
are helpless in their debate with the Gnostics and
Marcion, so far as the Scriptural argument is concerned.
If they allegorize the Old Testament they cannot on prin
ciple deny the right of the Gnostics to allegorize the
New Testament, or the Old Testament either if they saw
fit to do so. And as between the various allegorical
interpretations, what principle could decide which was
the proper one ? It should be observed, however, that the
allegorical method was recognized both by the Fathers
and their Gnostic opponents as a legitimate principle of
1 Irenaeus criticizes the same custom in the same way.

80 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
exegesis. There is a common exegetical standing
ground. The only question was as to the proper sphere
in which the allegory could be applied and the proper
results of its application. The situation was practically
analogous to the situation which arose between the
pagans and the Christians. Each side recognized the
legitimacy of the allegory; they differed only as to the
sphere of its application. But it is obvious that allegory
versus allegory can lead to no secure results in the de
bate. As against Marcion there was no common
exegetical standing-ground whatever, so necessary to any
fruitful debate. The allegory could not be successfully
used against the Gnostics because they too could al
legorize; it could not be successfully used against
Marcion because he consistently followed an entirely
different principle of exegesis.
It is interesting to observe that Clement of Alexandria
and Origen do not appear to be fully conscious of the
difficulties in which the allegorical method logically in
volved them. They had a supreme confidence in the
self-sufficiency of Scripture. It was its own interpreter.
Its great Christian truths were self-authenticating to
the spiritually illuminated. All that was necessary to
do was to elaborate the technique of the allegory in order
to possess the key to all biblical mysteries. And this
Origen did. He sought to place the allegory on a
scientific basis. Far different was the attitude of
Irenaeus and Tertullian toward the perplexities into
which the allegory had led them. They frankly faced
them. Thus Tertullian says : " Though most skilled in
the Scriptures, you will make no progress when every
thing which is maintained by one side is denied by the
other and whatever you deny is maintained by them

THE DILEMMA OF THE FATHERS 8l
[your opponents]." One who hears such a debate will
go away not knowing which side to judge heretical, " for
no doubt they are able to retort the same things to us;
it is indeed a necessary consequence that they should say
that adulterations of Scripture and false expositions
thereof are rather introduced by ourselves, inasmuch as
they no less than we maintain that truth is on their side."
The dilemma in which Irenaeus and Tertullian found
themselves because of their lack of any scientific method
of exegesis could not be stated with greater candor.
What was to be done in this exigency? At this point,
Irenaeus and Tertullian take a fatal step. Instead of
adopting a scientific principle of exegesis they introduce
Church authority under the guise of Tradition as the
norm of interpretation. The movement of thought
which we have been following now becomes associated
with the great dogmatic consolidations of the second
and third centuries that led directly to ecclesiastical
absolutism.

CHAPTER V
THE CHURCH AS THE AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETER
OF SCRIPTURE
To trace the growth of the conception of Tradition
in the ancient Church belongs to a study of dogma. We
have to deal with the idea only in its relationship to the
problem created by the allegorical method of exegesis.
Yet a brief sketch of the doctrinal situation which was
developing at this time is necessary, if we would under
stand the full significance of the patristic appeal to
Tradition in support of the catholic interpretation of
the Scriptures as against the heretics.

In the Primitive Church the conception of Scripture,
as we have already had occasion to remark, was limited
to the Old Testament. But in addition to the Old Testa
ment the Church was in possession of an apostolic
Tradition which it regarded as also authoritative. This
Traditon was found in two forms : the written tradition
preserved in the apostolic writings, and an informal
anecdotal tradition which had been received from those
who had come into more or less direct contact with the
Apostles. We meet with the latter especially in the
writings of Polycarp, Papias and Justin. Of these two
forms the written tradition was undoubtedly by far the
82

PROBLEM OF INTERPRETATION AND TRADITION 83
more important and influential. It is to be carefully
noted that the New Testament writings are thus sub
sumed under the idea of Tradition, the teachings which
the Apostles had handed down in writing to the
Churches. It is also to be noted that the conception of
it is at first historical, rather than dogmatic. In the
apostolic writings are preserved the historically authentic
teachings of the Apostles. But as time went on the
written tradition tended to become through its own in
herent power a dogmatic authority, that is, to become
authoritative not simply because it was an authentic
historical tradition, but because it was thought to be an
inspired and infallible authority. This tendency was
hastened through the Gnostic, Marcionite and Montanist
controversies of the second and third centuries. These
controversies forced the Church to defend its acceptance
of the Old Testament as Scripture on the one hand and
to insist upon apostolicity as the test of truth on the
other. As a result the apostolic writings became
gradually coordinated with the Old Testament as in
spired and infallible Scripture. Thus far the develop
ment is seen to be distinctly favorable to the supremacy
of the written tradition. The historical, written tradi
tion becomes an infallible written tradition. In the face
of such a development the informal, anecdotal recollec
tions of the earlier, unwritten tradition, would have
naturally blurred and faded away in the course of time,
and the written tradition would have been left the sole
authority, the supreme documentary source of the
Church's faith, the final court of appeal in all contro
versies. But this normal course of development was
not to unroll itself unhindered through the centuries.
The debate with the heretics, particularly with the

84 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Gnostics and the Marcionites, introduced new and
important factors into the development. On the
one hand many of the Gnostics claimed to be
in possession of a secret apostolic tradition. The
Apostles, they held, were not fully apprised of all
the truths of the Christian religion nor had they com
mitted all they did know to the writings generally
preserved in the Church. There were other documents
in addition to the usually accepted ones, which the
Gnostics claimed possessed authority (cf. the Gospel of
Truth among the Valentinians and the Gospel of
Basilides). On the other hand Marcion accepted only a
part of the New Testament writings — ten of the Pauline
Epistles and a mutilated copy of Luke. In answer to
these contentions the Church fell back upon the view
that only that which was truly apostolic was authorita
tive and also that all that was apostolic was authoritative.
But what was apostolic? This is the question of the
Canon. The Church followed a correct historical in
stinct in its insistence upon apostolicity as a test of truth
and it made an honest attempt to establish the
apostolicity of the New Testament writings by historical
means. But it did not succeed in establishing the
apostolicity of some of the writings (e.g. the Epistle
to the Hebrews or Second Peter) by a purely historical
method of research. It was compelled to fall back upon
the usage of the Apostolic Churches to prove their
apostolicity in certain cases. In other words while
apostolicity is the correct historical principle for the
formation of a New Testament canon, the proof of
apostolicity could not in every instance be carried
through, and the usage, that is the authority, of the
Church, was introduced. The written tradition as in-

THE UNWRITTEN TRADITION AND THE CREED 85
corporatcd in the canon was no longer purely historical.
It had become dogmatic. Not only had the canon taken
on the characteristics of inspiration and infallibility in
the course of time through its association with the Old
Testament, but the authority of the Church had supplied
the deficiencies of the historical evidence for it. This
line of development is most clearly followed in Origen.
But it is not this line which especially concerns us.
The second burning question which arose between the
heretics and the orthodox Church was : How the New
Testament writings are to be understood, or the question
of Interpretation. This was occasioned, as has already
been indicated, by the unregulated character of the
exegesis of the times. The Gnostics claimed that they
had authority in their secret apostolic tradition for their
interpretations. The Old-Catholic Fathers, Irenaeus and
Tertullian, in order to off-set this claim, introduced the
idea of a public, apostolic tradition to which, as the
authoritative norm, the exposition of the Scriptures must
conform. It is the consideration of this public apostolic
tradition as the norm of interpretation to which we must
now address ourselves.

II
If the conception of the public, apostolic tradition is
analyzed, two elements in it stand out with distinctness:
its content or the creed, and the channel through which
the tradition flowed, or the historic episcopate. It is, of
course, impossible to trace in full the development of
each of these conceptions. This would involve us in
some of the most intricate and disputed questions in the
history of dogma. But happily the main points which

86 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
are connected with our special problem are sufficiently
clear. In the first place there can be no doubt that Irenaeus
at times drew at least a formal distinction between the
written tradition, or Scripture, and the unwritten tradi
tion. After referring to the Gnostic secret traditions
and misinterpretations of Scripture and pointing his
opponents to " that tradition which originates with the
Apostles," Irenaeus blames them for consenting " neither
to Scripture nor Tradition." Again he says : " It is
not necessary to seek the truth from others when it can
be easily obtained from the Church; the Apostles, like
a rich man depositing money in a bank, lodged in the
Church's hands most copiously all things pertaining to
the truth. . . . Suppose there arise a dispute rela
tive to some important question among us, should we not
have recourse to the most important churches with which
the Apostles had constant intercourse and learn from
them what is clear and certain? For how should it be
if the Apostles themselves had not left us any writings?
Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the
Tradition which they handed down to those to whom
they committed the Churches?" In these passages
Tradition is very clearly distinguished from the
Scriptures. Irenaeus can conceive of it as existing apart
from the Scriptures. It is also clear that Tradition is
here played off against the Gnostic misinterpretations of
the Scriptures. In Irenaeus the conception of an informal,
anecdotal, unwritten tradition is undergoing a transfor
mation into the idea of an authoritv coordinate with the
written tradition. But here a question arises. In what
did the Tradition find expression? Was it something
indeterminate or was it definite and tangible? To

THE UNWRITTEN TRADITION AND THE CREED 87
answer this question we must first ask and answer an
other. What is the Canon of Faith or of Truth to which
Irenaeus so often appeals against the heretics? The
exact meaning of this phrase has been much disputed.
The reason is because Irenaeus himself probably uses it
in different senses. At times there is little question that
it is applied to the Scriptures. Yet it is not the technical
name for them. The word " canon " is first applied to
them in the technical sense by Athanasius. When the
phrase is applied to the Scriptures it undoubtedly refers
primarily to their content. On the other hand there can
be as little question, I think, that the phrase is also ap
plied to the ancient baptismal formula, the old Roman
symbol, progenitor of the Apostles' Creed. And at
least in one celebrated passage, in which the identifica
tion of the Canon of Truth with the creed is clearest, it
is made at the same time the norm of interpretation.
After describing various Gnostic misinterpretations of
Scripture and comparing them to the work of the
" homer ocentoncs" (see above, p. 79), Irenaeus points
out that he who is really acquainted with Homer will
recognize the mistakes made. " In like manner," he
continues, " he also who retains unchanged in himself
the Canon of Truth which he received in baptism will
doubtless recognize the names, expressions and parables
taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowl
edge the blasphemous use which these men make of
them. . . . But when he has restored every one of the
expressions to its proper position and fitted it to the little
body of truth (somation) , he will prove the figments of
these heretics to be without any foundation." There
can be no reasonable doubt that " the little body of
truth " is identified with the Canon of Truth received

88 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
in baptism and the context makes it certain that the
latter is identified with the Roman baptismal formula.
We also have the clear statement that the interpretation
of Scripture is to conform to this standard. " It is to be
fitted to the little body of truth." Irenaeus, of course,
does not mean that the authority of the symbol is in
dependent of the authority of Scripture, even though
the symbol itself is coordinate with Scripture. The
creed and Scripture were for him undoubtedly only two
forms of the same authority. The creed is the con
centrated essence, so to speak, of Scripture. Hence the
Canon of Truth, which refers especially to the content,
may be applied equally to the Scripture or to the creed,
for the content of both is theoretically the same. The
authority of Tradition as expressed in the symbol was not
considered as in any sense competing with the authority
of Scripture ; it was only another channel through which
the authority of Scripture flowed and by which it could
be more effectively utilized to wash away the stains of
heresy. The distinction between the documented
tradition, i.e., the Scripture, and the undocumented
tradition was one of form, not of content. Neverthe
less this new conception of the unwritten tradition as
an authoritative body of Truth, which begins to emerge
in Irenaeus, is something very different from the anecdotal
tradition of earlier times and contains within itself the
germs of a most momentous historical development.
Granted that in theory the written tradition and the
unwritten tradition were only formally distinct, never
theless this distinction, which is at first only formal, may
soon become a real one. The unwritten tradition
formally distinguished from the written tradition has
now the opportunity to develop independently. The

THE UNWRITTEN TRADITION AND THE CREED 89
dogmatic consequences are obvious. If the unwritten
tradition was made the norm of interpretation when it
was still in essential agreement with the written tradition,
it would be very natural for it to remain the norm after
it became differentiated in form as well as in content.
This would mean that in process of time the unwritten
tradition as the norm of interpretation would come abso
lutely to dominate the written tradition. This danger
is accentuated the more it is admitted that the written
tradition cannot be properly understood and needs an
authoritative interpretation. But it is the allegorical
method of exegesis which makes the written tradition
of doubtful interpretation. In Tertullian we see how
Irenaeus's more flexible view of the normative character
of the creed becomes fixed and rigid, how the problem
of the uncertainty of scriptural interpretation for pur
poses of argument reacts upon his lawyer's sensibilities
with growing painfulness, and how in consequence he
throws himself back upon the unwritten tradition in its
creedal form with increasing abandon. He devotes a
whole tract to the discussion of these questions (The
Praescriptions against Heretics). After describing in
this tract the dilemma referred to above, which was
forced upon him by the Gnostic interpretations of
Scripture and which he was unable to meet because he
possessed no scientific method of interpreting it, Ter
tullian bluntly says : " Our appeal, therefore, must not
be made to the Scripture." Instead, he appeals to the
doctrine held by the Apostolic Churches, i.e. to the un
written tradition as formally distinct from the
Scriptures. " All doctrine which agrees with the
Apostolic Churches, those wombs and original sources
of the faith, must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly

90 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
containing that which the said churches received from
the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ and Christ from
God; whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false
which savors of contrariety to the truth held by the
Churches and the Apostles of Christ and of God."
Tertullian does not mean to say any more than Irenaeus
does that what the unwritten tradition teaches differs
from what the Scripture teaches. Such a position was
never taken at any time in the history of the Church.
Throughout that history the Scriptures have always been
theoretically supreme. But what he does mean to say
is that because of the doubtfulness of their interpreta
tion the Scriptures are unusable in debate.1 Related to
Tertullian's distinction between the written and the un
written tradition, drawn more sharply by him than by
Irenaeus, is his more definite identification of the Canon
of Truth with the baptismal formula and the more
legalistic attitude adopted toward this creed. It is
significant that not the Canon of Truth or Faith but
the Rule (regula) of Truth or Faith is Tertullian's
favorite expression. The rigid Latin term is substituted
for the more flexible Greek term. The creed is now a
law. " Now with regard to the rule of faith [described
in the context by a paraphrase of the old Roman symbol]
you must know that which prescribes." . . . Again he
says : " When entering into the water we make con
fession of the Christian faith in words of its law." In
vestigation is to be limited by this law. " To know noth
ing in opposition to the rule is to know all things." And
again: "Wherever it shall be manifest that the true
1 Fortunately Tertullian did not adhere to any great extent to his
theory. As a matter of fact he uses the Scriptures constantly and
seemingly with the greatest confidence.

THE UNWRITTEN TRADITION AND THE CREED 91
Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be
the true Scriptures and the true exposition thereof."
In this last quotation the question of the canon and the
question of its exposition are united and solved by the
appeal to the unwritten tradition, in the form of the
Rule of Faith. But this last quotation introduces us
to the second main point in our analysis of the new idea
of the unwritten tradition in its relationship to interpre
tation. Tertullian states that the true Canon and the
true expositions are to be found where the true Christian
rule of faith is to be found. But where is that to be
found? Thus far we have been dealing with the con
tent of the unwritten tradition. The Canon or Rule of
Faith stands for this content. We have now to look at
the channel through which the content of the unwritten
tradition reached the Fathers. This channel is the
historic episcopate. Ill
The ominous alliance between the unwritten tradition
and the episcopal organization of the Church was also
effected by Irenaeus and Tertullian. The reason for it is
obvious. Granted that that tradition is normative which
is apostolic, have the Churches preserved the apostolic
tradition? This very question is raised by Tertullian.
After laying down the principle that the doctrine which
agrees with the Apostolic Churches must be regarded
as true, he recognizes it to be incumbent upon him " to
demonstrate that this doctrine of ours which we have
given as the Rule has its origin in the tradition of the
Apostles." He next defends the purity and completeness
of the apostolic doctrine against the attacks of the

92 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Gnostics. But this defense by itself is not sufficient.
" Since, therefore, it is incredible," he continues, " that
the Apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of
the message which they had to declare, or failed to make
known to men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether,
while the Apostles proclaimed it simply and fully, the
Churches set it forth otherwise than the Apostles had
done." Granted a full and accurate original revelation
through the Apostles, what is the guaranty of its cor
rect preservation? The historic episcopate is the
guaranty. " Let the heretics," Tertullian taunts, " un
fold the roll of Bishops running down in due succession
from the beginning in such a manner that their first
bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer some one
of the Apostles or apostolic men, as the churches at
Smyrna or Rome are able to show. In exactly the same
way the other churches exhibit those whom they regard,
because appointed to the episcopal office by Apostles, as
transmitters of the apostolic seed." Similarly, Irenaeus
points the Gnostics to " that tradition which originates
from the Apostles and which is preserved by means of
the succession of Presbyters in the Churches." He then
instances the tradition preserved by the great and
universally recognized Church of Rome which was
founded by Peter and Paul, gives the list of the reputed
Roman bishops from apostolic times and concludes :
" In this order and by this succession the ecclesiastical
tradition from the Apostles and the preaching of the
truth have come down to us."
But it is not only the function of a Bishop to preserve
the tradition uncorrupted from apostolic times; as the
one possessed of this norm of interpretation the Bishop
naturally becomes the proper interpreter of Scripture.

UNWRITTEN TRADITION AND THE EPISCOPATE 93
Irenaeus points out how, according to i Cor. 12 : 28, God
has placed in the Church " first apostles, secondly prophets,
thirdly teachers " ; " where, therefore, the gifts of the
Lord have been placed, there it behoves us to learn the
truth, namely from those persons who possess the succes
sion from the Apostles. . . . For they also preserve this
faith of ours in one God [the allusion is to the first article
of the creed] and expound the Scriptures to us without
danger, neither blaspheming God nor dishonoring the
Patriarchs, nor despising the Prophets [allusions to the
Gnostic criticism of the Old Testament]." It is a most
significant fact for the purposes of our discussion that
the chapter of which this passage is the concluding sec
tion (IV. 26) opens with a statement of the enigma
theory of prophecy. A Scripture truth which is ex
pressed in enigmas requires interpretation. The Bishop,
who holds the true key to the enigmas, is the natural in
terpreter. But there is a still further step to be taken in the way
of allying interpretation to the unwritten tradition, and
this is the most fatal step of all. We have seen how, in
the establishment of the Canon, it was necessary to resort
to Church authority as a substitute for the historical
proof of apostolicity in the case of some of the writ
ings, and how in proportion as this was done, the histori
cal principle which was at the basis of the formation of
the Canon was insensibly transformed into a dogmatic
principle. Not only was inspiration and infallibility
attributed to each separate book of the New Testament,
but the collection of writings as a whole was fixed by
Church authority. A precisely similar phenomenon is
to be noticed in the development of the idea of the un
written tradition as a norm of interpretation. Now in

94 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
the passages thus far cited from Irenaeus and Tertullian
the conception of the unwritten tradition is still essen
tially historical. In the first place inspiration and in
fallibility were not yet formally attributed to it, notably
not in the case of the Roman symbol. This was not
thought of as composed by the Apostles themselves, as
later the Apostles' Creed was supposed to be. In the
next place the Fathers undertook to show by a real
historical proof that the unwritten tradition was apos
tolic when they produced their lists of Bishops in the
Apostolic Churches who had been the custodians of the
tradition from apostolic times down to their present.
Therefore, when the Fathers resorted to the unwritten
tradition in order to justify their interpretations of the
Scriptures in the debate with the heretics, they could
claim with some show of propriety that their interpreta
tions had indeed the sanction of the Apostles, and that
consequently their understanding of the Scriptures was
the genuinely historical Christian understanding of them.
The theory of the Fathers was historically unimpeach
able. But how about the facts? After all, had the
Bishops been able to preserve the unwritten tradition
uncontaminated from the beginning, or had a variety of
influences been at work often reshaping and modifying
it in essential particulars? In the latter case the un
written tradition would cease to be historical in the
strict sense of the term. But when Tradition ceases to
be genuinely historical, it must become dogmatic if it is
still to exert any influence. In other words, just as the
authority of the Church made good the deficiency of the
evidence for the apostolicity of certain books of the
written tradition, so it makes good the lack of the his
torical proof that certain elements in the unwritten tra-

UNWRITTEN TRADITION AND THE EPISCOPATE 95
dition were apostolic. This means that what the
Church is really doing is not preserving tradition but
manufacturing it. The transformation of the historical
tradition into a manufactured or dogmatic tradition may
be quite unconscious, usually is so, but it is none the
less real. Now the development of the historical un
written tradition, granted for the sake of the argument
that there ever was such a thing in any strict sense, into
a dogmatic unwritten tradition was greatly encouraged
by the view that the Holy Spirit was still operative in
the Church and in an especial sense in its ruling authori
ties. We meet with the beginnings of this essentially
dogmatic view of the episcopate already in Irenaeus.
In the same passage in which he associates the function
of interpretation with the episcopal office he urges
obedience to those who, " together with the succession
of Bishops, have received the certain charism of truth."
The episcopal office in Irenaeus is essentially a teaching
office, and in this passage there is the suggestion that
the Bishop, as a teacher, has a special spiritual endow
ment. It is true that Irenaeus, though a Bishop, did not
avail himself of any official protection for his own exe
gesis. He did not carry out the logic of the theory, the
germ of which is found in the above passage. But
what he failed to do might be done by others. From
this seed-thought of Irenaeus might easily grow up the
conviction that the traditional interpretation of the
Scriptures is apostolic simply because the apostolic
Bishop endued with the charisms of truth says so. In
that case the process of manufacturing tradition will
become thoroughly organized and dogma will completely
supplant history.

96 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY

IV

There is one final step in the development of dogma
which was to have a sinister, even though an indirect,
bearing upon the question of interpretation. In the
period with which we have been dealing and the cen
turies immediately subsequent, the Church was trans
forming itself into a sacramental institution, the presby
ter was becoming a priest. As the dispenser of grace
through the sacraments the priest was gradually ac
quiring the power of the keys, the power to open or
close the doors of heaven to the suppliant. The awe
which this mysterious sacramental power of the Bishop
engenders will naturally be reflected in an increased re
spect for his dignity as a teacher, and the dogmatic de
velopment of the authority of the unwritten tradition, as
the norm of interpretation, will be consummated. Iren
aeus and Tertullian were to be followed by Hippo-
lytus and Cyprian ! One citation from Hippolytus must
suffice. He claims that heretics cannot be refuted except
by " the Holy Spirit bequeathed unto the Church, which
the Apostles, having in the first instance received, have
transmitted to those who have rightly believed; but we,
being their successors and participators in this grace,
high-priesthood and teaching, as well as being reputed
guardians of the Church, must not be found deficient."
Observe here the ominous combination of the priestly
and the teaching functions of the Bishop, successor of the
Apostles and endowed with a special grace! It was
Cyprian who was mainly responsible for the unification
and consolidation of the various tendencies which have
here been briefly sketched into the thoroughly wrought
out conception of the Church as a great sacramental

THE ECUMENICAL CREEDS AND THE POPE 97
and teaching institution. Upon the foundations so
firmly laid by him the great superstructure of ecclesiasti
cal authority, as distinct from the authority of Scripture,
was erected. The transformation of the semi-historical
unwritten tradition into a purely dogmatic unwritten
tradition now proceeded with a greatly accelerated pace. ,
The culmination of the development was reached along
two lines: in the imposing formulation of the ecumenical
creeds and in the consolidation of the power of the
Bishops in the hands of the Bishops of Rome. The
first result was worked out principally in the Eastern
Church, the second result in the Western Church.
V
The idea that the Bishop possessed the charism of
truth soon developed into the conception that a special
sanctity attached to the decisions of priest-bishops duly
assembled in a council. When the council represented
the whole Church it was very natural to attach to it
paramount authority. It remained for the half -pagan
Constantine to initiate the idea of a general council. It
was he who convoked the Council of Nicaea in order to
settle the Arian controversies and it was he who first
ascribed infallibility to it. " Whatever is determined in
the holy assembly of Bishops," he maintains, " may be
attributed to the divine will." In the declarations of this
council we have for the first time a formal, authoritative
declaration of the Church, a written creed. The novelty
of such a thing struck contemporaries. Hilary calls at
tention to the fact that now the creed " begins to be
written." But there was another thing about this creed
that gave uneasiness even to its defenders. It was

98 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
couched in unbiblical language, in the scientific language
of Greek philosophy. (Compare homoousios.) But
the language was defended on the ground that it had
been already employed by the Fathers and that it gave
the sense of Scripture more scientifically and precisely.
In other words the old fiction was still preserved; the
creed was not put forth as something new. It was pro
claimed as apostolic and as the ancient catholic faith.
The exigencies of the debate with the Arians speedily
dissipated the initial scruples which were felt with re
spect to the creed. It soon came to be regarded by all
the orthodox as sacrosanct and it imparted the same
character to its successors, the creeds of Constantinople,
Ephesus and Chalcedon, which were regarded as only
explications of its implications. The traits of infalli
bility and inspiration, which we saw were originally want
ing to the unwritten tradition, were now ascribed to these
great creeds, and in their written form they are erected
into the law of the Church, from which it is impossible to
swerve by a hair's breadth. The legislation of Justinian
prescribes that " the dogmas of the four councils of
Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon are to
be honored as the inspired Scriptures." Somewhat
later Gregory I declares : " I receive and venerate the
four councils as I do the four books of the holy Gos
pels." And when the attempt was made to tamper with
the wording and insert the filioque the sacrilege pro
duced the schism between the Western and Eastern
Churches! Through the Church's power to manufac
ture tradition the " little body of truth," which we saw
emerging in Irenaeus, has now become enlarged into a
vast corpus of highly speculative theology. The expo
sitions of Scripture which must be fitted to " the little

THE ECUMENICAL CREEDS AND THE POPE 99
body " must now be conformed to the greater body, as
the formal and infallible law of the Church. The
fiction may be still preserved that the Scripture is still
supreme and that the creed is only the apostolic inter
pretation of it. But in reality the unwritten tradition
has undergone an independent development, and, pre
cipitated in the formal written creed solemnly declared
by the priest-bishops of the Church, gathered in a general
council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to be the
only legal interpretation of the Scripture, it has for all
practical purposes triumphed over the Scriptures. The
theory that an apostolic norm of interpretation has been
historically preserved has been transformed in practice
into the dogmatic power to create tradition, to which, as
the law of the Church, the interpreter of Scripture must
conform or suffer everlasting damnation (anathema).1
1 It is interesting to observe how this fiction of an apostolic tra
dition still underlies the position of the present Bishop of Oxford.
In his Bampton lectures of 1896 he says : " These decisions [i.e.
of the ecumenical councils] do, it is contended, simply express in a
new form, without substantial addition ( ! ) the apostolic teaching
as it is represented in the New Testament. They express it in a
new form for protective purposes, as a legal enactment protects a
moral principle. They are developments only in the sense that they
represent the apostolic teaching worked out into formulas by the
aid of a terminology supplied by Greek dialectic. . . . The decrees are
but a hedge, the New Testament is the pasture ground." The meta
phor of the hedge has unfortunate associations. The Jew con
structed a " hedge about the Law " and would no doubt have de
scribed its relation to the Law in much the same way as Bishop
Gore describes the relations of the creed to the Gospels. Never
theless so many weeds sprang out of that earlier hedge and over
ran the good pasture land that the Lord spent much of his life in
the attempt to uproot it. The tradition of the elders was too
grievous to be borne. May not the conciliar hedge similarly have
seeded into the pasture land of the Gospel? The danger of Bishop
Gore's position is, however, especially found in the phrase " legal
enactment." The creed as the law of the Church is bound to super
sede the Scriptures for all practical purposes.

ilOO PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
In the West the development followed a somewhat
different line. The practical bent of the Western
Church manifested itself more in Church organization
than in speculative theology. There we find the ecclesi
astical authority more and more established in the hands
of the Bishop of Rome. The creeds are of course ac
cepted, but they play a less important role in the Western
Church than does the Bishop of Rome. It is the Bishop
of Rome that becomes in the West the real mouthpiece
of Tradition. This led to an interesting difference in
the subsequent development of the two branches of the
Church. The development of dogma ceased in the
Eastern Church with the formulation of the great ecu
menical creeds, but in Rome it continued to roll on in
ever increasing volume down to the Reformation. The
Papacy itself assumed the teaching function and with it
the power to declare what was apostolic tradition. It
is true that the curialist theory, which locates all power
in the Pope, was contested even in the West by the con
ciliar theologians who championed the final authority of
the creeds. But after all, the Papacy and not the creeds
is the distinguishing characteristic of the Western
Church as compared with the Eastern.
But it may be objected that in this long discussion of
the relationship of interpretation to the unwritten tra
dition, and in the description of the transformation of
historical tradition into dogma, we have lost the thread
of our argument and completely diverted the attention
of the reader from the main theme of this essay. The
objection has a show of reason. Nevertheless it must
be regarded as in no sense pertinent. What at first
sight appears to be a digression has been deliberately

THE ECUMENICAL CREEDS AND THE POPE IOI
elaborated in order that the way may be prepared clearly
to understand the momentous change that is to take
place hereafter in the argument from prophecy. Un
less it is thoroughly understood how the argument from
prophecy in the sense of prediction came to be inextric
ably connected with the more general problem of inter
pretation, and how the latter problem in turn became lost
in the problem of the relationship of the unwritten to the
written tradition, in the solution of which the Scriptures
became for all practical purposes completely subordi
nated to the creeds on the one hand and to the Pope on
the other, it will be impossible to follow intelligently the
various phases of the development which is to follow
and to draw from them the proper deductions. We
shall see how in the Reformation times the problem of
the relationship of Tradition to Scripture, or the problem
of authority, is again reopened, how this in turn reopened
the problem of interpretation, how the new solution of
the latter problem was applied specifically to the inter
pretation of prophecy, and how this finally led to an en
tirely changed conception of prophecy. This rather
roundabout way of reaching our conclusion has one
great advantage. It enables us to fix our principles of
interpretation before they are applied to prophecy, the
matter which immediately concerns us. Wherever any
problem is to be solved in which strong prejudices or
convictions are involved, it is always of the greatest as
sistance to an impartial judgment if the principles which
must enter into the solution can be fixed before the at
tempt to apply them to the case in hand is made. If we
can see these principles justified by their agreement with
other principles in larger connections, or operating con-

102 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
vincingly in what may be termed neutral territory, we
are less likely to balk at them when they are applied to a
debatable matter.
VI
Before turning to the modern period it will be helpful
to summarize the results thus far obtained, (i) One
of the most important questions in the Early Church was
the relationship of the Old Testament Scripture to the
Gospel. This question was fundamental in the anti-
Jewish polemic, in the defense of Christianity by the
Greek Apologists, in the debate between the Old-Catholic
theologians and the Gnostics and Marcionites. The
Church maintained the thesis that the Old Testament
was a Christian document and in this way sought to meet
the difficulties raised by the Jews, by the philosophically
educated Gentiles and by the heretics. (2) In the sup
port of this thesis the argument from prophecy played
the leading role. This argument was always considered
to be the clincher in the debates. (3) In the conduct of
the argument the Fathers laid the entire emphasis upon
the predictive element in prophecy. It was the minute
correspondences between prophecy and fulfilment in the
life of Christ which guaranteed the unity of the two
Testaments and thus established the typical character of
the ceremonial, the very ancient and inspired character
of the Christian religion, and the identity of the Messiah
of the Old Testament with the Christ of the Gospels.
(4) But the predictive element in prophecy could be
vindicated to the extent which the Fathers claimed only
when the historical meaning of the prophecies was de
nied. Not until they were spiritualized could they be
conformed in the way desired to the New Testament ful-

SUBJECTION OF SCRIPTURE TO THE CHURCH IO3
filment. (5) This conformation was exegetically ef
fected by the mystical or allegorical method of interpre
tation. (6) The adoption of this method by the Fath
ers was in no sense arbitrary. It was the scientific
method of interpretation employed in those days to ac
commodate sacred books to the changes in intellectual
conceptions and moral needs which had taken place since
the books were originally written. The method had been
used by the Greeks in their expositions of Homer, had
been applied to the Old Testament by the Alexandrine
Jews, and above all had been employed, in principle at
least, by the New Testament writers themselves. (7)
But though the adoption of the method by the Fathers
was not arbitrary, the method itself was. It was an
entirely unregulated method of exegesis, and, when taken
by itself, proved inadequate to meet the attacks of the
heretics. It turned the prophecies into enigmas and the
correctness of the orthodox solution of the enigmas in
the debate with the heretics could not be demonstrated.
(8) In order to supplement the deficiencies of the alle
gorical method in debate, the Fathers were obliged to
introduce the principle of ecclesiastical authority in the
form of the unwritten tradition as the norm of interpre
tation. Exegesis must conform in its results to the
Rule of Faith, as that was handed down by the succession
of Bishops from the Apostles. (9) While the intro
duction of the unwritten tradition as the norm of inter
pretation was at first innocent enough and had a quasi-
historical justification, it soon became the lever by which
the authority of the Church was enabled to exalt itself
above the Scriptures. The Scriptures are to be inter
preted by the creed because the creed has been handed
down from the Apostles. The creed can be trusted be-

104 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
cause it has been preserved uncontaminated by the suc
cession of bishops. The bishops know best how to in
terpret the Scripture by the creed because they possess
the charism of truth. The authority of their interpre
tation was also increased by the fact that they were in
the way of becoming priests with the keys of salvation
in their possession. Tradition ceased to be historical in
any sense whatever and became dogmatic. The norm of
interpretation was no longer an historical norm but a
dogmatic norm. That was apostolic which was de
clared to be apostolic by the successors of the Apostles.
(10) The final result was, that the argument from
prophecy conducted by the allegorical method of exegesis
became indissolubly united with the great dogmatic
movements of the third, fourth and fifth centuries, and
the Bible, which had been resolved by the allegory into
a book of enigmas, became completely subjected to the
creed as the law of the Church, or to the Pope as its
Law-giver. One citation may be given that admirably
sums up the course of the development which we have
traced. It is taken from Vincentius of Lirinum who
died about 445 a. d. Standing on the threshold of the
Middle Ages, Vincentius's statement is prophetic of what
was to come. " Since the perfect canon of Scripture is
sufficient of itself and more than sufficient for all pur
poses, what need is there that the authority of the eccle
siastical understanding should be added to it? Because
all people do not receive the Scripture on account of its
elevation [observe the implication of the mysterious
qualities which inhere in an inspired book] in one and
the same sense, but its speech is interpreted by one in
one way, by another in another, so that it appears that
almost as many opinions can be derived from it as there

SUBJECTION OF SCRIPTURE TO THE CHURCH IO5
are men [obscurity of Scripture]. Therefore it is nec
essary that the line of the prophetic and apostolic inter
pretation should be directed according to the norm of the
ecclesiastical sense."

PART II
THE MODERN PERIOD

CHAPTER VI
THE SOLE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE AND THE REFOR
MATION PRINCIPLE OF EXEGESIS: LUTHER

In the first part of this sketch the attempt was made
to show how the patristic argument from prophecy con
strued as prediction became indissolubly bound up with
the development of ecclesiastical authority at the expense
of the authority of Scripture. The connecting link be
tween these two seemingly unrelated facts was the alle
gorical method of exegesis. On the one hand, by means
of this method those correspondences between predic
tion and fulfilment were established which made the
argument from prophecy so convincing to the Fathers
and their contemporaries. The proof from prophecy
construed as prediction could be successfully carried
through only when the historical meaning of the prophe
cies was ignored, and they were compelled to
suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange,
by being submerged into the warm, fancy-breeding floods
of the allegory. On the other hand, when the historical
meaning was denied, the interpretation of prophecy be
came uncertain. By the allegory the prophecies were
turned into enigmas, the Old Testament into a book of
enigmas, an Alice-in-Wonderland species of literature
109

IIO PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
which needed an interpreter. In order to regain the
certainty of interpretation which had been lost through
the defectiveness of the current exegetical method, the
authority of the Church was introduced. The Scrip
ture alone has always been theoretically the final au
thority, but the Scripture is obscure. The Church alone
can tell what it means. By the assumption of the right
to declare the true meaning of Scripture the Church
was able to elevate its own authority for all practical
purposes above that of the Scripture.
In this second part of our sketch it is proposed to
begin where the first part left off, namely with the dog
matic problem involved in the Church's claim to be the
sole interpreter of Scripture, then to point out how the
allegory was rejected and a new principle of exegesis
was introduced in order to reestablish the sole authority
of Scripture, not only theoretically but practically, and
finally to consider the effect of this new principle upon
the interpretation of prophecy construed as prediction.
By this method of approach, it is hoped, can best be
shown why it is that a new theory of prophecy must be
substituted for the old, why it is that a new view of the
authority of Scripture must be adopted, and therefore
finally, why it is that the various Millennialist interpreta
tions of prophecy cannot be accepted. It is only when
the modern theory of prophecy is looked at in the wider
perspective which I am here attempting to indicate that
it is seen to be no accidental or arbitrary theory, but the
logical and inevitable result of one of the profoundest
developments in Christian doctrine, a development whose
onward sweep is as irresistible as the flow of the Missis
sippi River, and which it is as idle to attempt to check
as to dam that continental drain at its mouth.

OUTLINE OF THE ARGUMENT III

II
The Middle Ages contributed no new points of view
either for the doctrine or the interpretation of Scripture.
The theologians of the Roman Catholic Church always
did homage to the sole authority of Scripture, but it was
only a lip-service. The real authority was the Church,
the interpreter of Scripture, either through its creeds
(so the conciliar theologians) or through the Pope (so
the curialists). It was with the latter that Luther came
first into conflict. The indulgence preachers were curial
ists and advocated papal infallibility in the crassest form,
and Luther's reactions must always be viewed in the
light of this fact. Priarias, the learned follower of
Thomas Aquinas, with whom Luther carried on a very
hot debate in 1518, actually went so far as to say that men
must rely upon the doctrine of the Roman Church and
the Roman pontiff " as the infallible rule of faith from
which the Scripture derives its strength and authority,"
and again, that " the Roman Church is able to decree con
cerning faith and morals by deed as well as by word.
. . . Hence for this reason custom has the force of law,
because the will of a prince is permissively or effectively
expressed by deeds " ! This theory he applies to indul
gences. " Whoever says of indulgences that the Roman
Church cannot do that which as a matter of fact it does
do, is a heretic ! " The theory still is that the teachings
of Scripture and of Tradition are the same, but Tradition
is now manufactured not only by creedal formularies
but by the custom of the Church. The development
along this line could go no farther.

112 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Meanwhile no advance had been made in exegetical
method. In fact it became more and more arbitrary.
There were also in this connection, it is true, theoretical
statements which recognized the necessity of basing in
terpretation upon the literal sense as the foundation, but
the thesis had little practical influence upon exegesis.
How little may be seen in the fact that the literal sense
is at times actually identified with the mystical sense!
Gerson, for example, distinguishes between the letter
which kills (2 Cor. 3:6) and the sensus litteralis, which
is that which the Holy Spirit intends, and Faber Stapu-
lensis distinguishes a twofold literal sense(!), "the one
which the Jews gave to the words of a passage, the other
which Paul and the Prophets and the Holy Spirit gave
to them," in other words, the sense which the Old Testa
ment had in itself and the sense which the New Testa
ment gave to it. As a matter of fact the soil of the
Middle Ages was especially adapted to the growth of
the allegory. At a time when all sense for origins was
lost, when even the original languages of Scripture were
little known, and when the authority of the present
Church usurped the place of its historical documents in
men's minds, it is not to be wondered at that the alle
gory enjoyed the rankest sort of growth, and the Song
of Songs became the favorite book for commentators
to exercise their fancy upon. The threefold sense of
Scripture proposed by Origen was now elaborated into
a fourfold sense, the quadriga or four-in-hand, as Luther
calls it, described in the popular couplet,
The letter teaches history ; the allegory what is to be believed ;
The moral what you are to do; the anagoge what hopes should be
received.

AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETATION II3
Thus in the Middle Ages the tendencies which we saw
operating in the Patristic Period, both in the sphere of
the interpretation of Scripture and in the sphere of the
enlarging authority of the Church at the expense of the
authority of Scripture, worked themselves out to their
logical conclusions, and the way was thus prepared for
the great and decisive changes which were to be effected
by the Reformation. Ill
The issues in the Reformation period were absolutely
different from those which engaged the attention of the
Fathers of the first three centuries. The Messiahship
of Jesus was not now at stake. The philosophical diffi
culties felt by intelligent Christians of those early times
were no longer felt. Christianity was no longer some
thing new under the sun. The ceremonial system of the
Old Testament no longer gave offense to those who had
become thoroughly imbued with the idea of a ceremonial
Christianity in the Roman Church. The theosophical
speculations of the early heretics had lost their meaning,
and the unity of the two Testaments was accepted as a
matter of course. The proof from prophecy construed
as prediction, by which these early difficulties were met
and solved, had lost any real significance. It might be
retained as an ecclesiastical convention but it no longer
had any living force. The issues were now grouped
about two very different problems, the problem of salva
tion, and the problem of authority. In the life of
Luther, more particularly in the development of his
position during the Thesis controversy down to the
Leipsic debate, these two great problems received their
most classic formulation. The Reformation was born

114 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
in a great religious experience, the experience of salva
tion by faith without the intervention of priest or sacra
ment. The Church through all those centuries in which
Tradition was being manufactured had developed into a
vast sacramental apparatus of salvation. No one could
be saved unless this complicated machinery was set in
motion by the priest for the benefit of the sinner, and to
avail himself of its benefit certain conditions must be
met, certain things must first be done. Salvation had
become in essence salvation by works. But Luther had
found direct access to God through faith. He did not
realize it at first, but the determining experience of his
religious life meant the ultimate denial of the necessity
of priestly mediation between the soul and its God.
Salvation was for him a free gift — it was salvation by
faith. The controversy over indulgences clarified
Luther's views as to the real meaning of the experience
through which he had passed. But the controversy had
another and quite unlooked-for result. When Luther's
new conception of religion led him more and more to
criticize the various abuses of the Church, which had
concentrated themselves in the doctrine of penance and
indulgences, he was at once challenged by the champions
of Church authority. Who was he to set up his personal
experience against the teachings of the Catholic Church !
In order to defend the validity of his experience Luther
was obliged to wrestle with the problem of authority.
In the debate on indulgences he was led step by step to
reject the various forms in which Tradition had clothed
itself. He began by rejecting the authority of the
Schoolmen. This, to be sure, was not Tradition in the
strict sense of the term, but it was none the less a real
authority. He went on to reject the authority of the

THE REFORMATION PRINCIPLE OF EXEGESIS 115
Pope, the ecclesiastical canons, the Fathers, and finally
and only after a serious struggle, the authority of
the general councils themselves. The authority of the
Scriptures, which had always been theoretically supreme
in the Church, now became practically supreme. The
Church was no longer to be the authentic interpreter of
Scripture and thus by indirection usurp the throne of
the Bible's sovereignty. The significance of the Thesis
controversy is to be found in the removal of the various
incrustations of ecclesiastical authority which had thick
ened around the authority of the Bible, until it was left
freed and uncontaminated, the only rule of faith and
practice. But, as we have had occasion frequently to point out,
to the reassertion of the sole and ultimate authority of
Scripture the assertion of its perspicuity is a necessary
corollary. An ambiguous authority is of no practical
value whatever. Luther is therefore constantly empha
sizing the perspicuity of Scripture. He gives an elabor
ate treatment of this subject in his two tracts on The
Goat at Leipsic, addressed to Emser, and on The En
slaved Will, addressed to Erasmus. "If the Scripture
is obscure," he says in the latter work, " which they (the
Romanists) attempt to explain, who will certify us that
their explanation is certain? Another new explanation.
But who will explain that? So it goes on forever; I
will have no part of it called obscure." The Holy
Spirit, he says again, " is the simplest writer and speaker
of all that is in heaven and earth."
But the Scripture is ambiguous so long as the alle
gorical method of exegesis is applied in interpreting it.
This method turns the Bible into a picture puzzle.
Hence Luther found it necessary to discard the allegori-

Il6 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
cal method if he was to reestablish the Bible as a usable
principle of authority. The difficulties in which we
found Irenaeus and Tertullian entangling themselves are
now beginning to unravel. It is exceedingly interesting
to trace the development of Luther's attitude toward the
allegory, but the writer hopes to treat of this subject
more at length elsewhere. It is sufficient for our pur
poses to note that while Luther's earliest works, espe
cially his Dictations on the Psalter, show on every page
the influence of the scholastic method of allegorical in
terpretation, he abandoned the method, in principle at
least, even before he nailed up his theses. In a sermon
dating early in 15 17 he condemns those who would turn
the Bible by means of the allegory into " a nose of wax "
and speaks contemptuously of the " quadriga." In his
exposition of Ps. 22 at a later date (1519-21) there
occurs a passage in which the immediate connection be
tween the allegorical method of exegesis and the estab
lishment of Church authority, which I have tried to
trace in the foregoing pages, is described in a most classi
cal way and at the same time in a way very characteristic
of Luther. Commenting upon v. 18, he draws an anal
ogy between the Scriptures and Christ's garments :
" The truth of faith is wrapped up in Scripture as
Christ is wrapped up in his clothes. But the garments
were divided. So the simple meaning of Scripture is
divided by the allegory into various senses. The apostles
of the Pope began to spread through the world the four
fold sense of Scripture and so rent the garment of
Christ, which became mere rags and tatters, which serve
for the teaching of neither faith, nor hope nor morals.
But beyond this division of the garment there is the
casting of lots whose it should be. In this game the

THE REFORMATION PRINCIPLE OF EXEGESIS 117
Pope is prince. Others may investigate and dispute in
Scripture, but without the Pope they can decide nothing
conclusively. He plays with his fellow gamesters till
the lot falls to him alone, and so the interpretation of
Scripture comes into his sole power. The victory in this
game has been so complete that the Pope is raised above
Scripture. Through this gaming of the accursed Popes
and sophists upon the seamless robe of Christ, the robe
has become a mockery and an uncertain possession; for
how will you teach faith with certainty when you make
the sense of Scripture uncertain? "
Again and again Luther condemns Origen for giving
so much attention to the spiritual (i.e. allegorical) sense.
" It is dangerous ; with it the Scripture goes under and
one makes no really good theologian."
In place of the allegorical method Luther enunciated
what may be called the great Reformation Principle of
Exegesis, namely that the sense of Scripture was not
threefold or fourfold but one, and that this was the
grammatico-historical sense (grammaticum historicum
sensum), as he himself calls it. By means of this prin
ciple of interpretation Luther was in position to restore
the authority of Scripture, which had been rendered illu
sory through the allegory, and upon this authority to
support the great reformation doctrine of justification
by faith.
It is instructive to observe what a complete reversal
had been effected in apologetics. With the change in
the point of attack there is a corresponding change in
the doctrinal emphasis and exegetical method. In the
Early Church the Messiahship of Jesus was one of the
main questions at issue. In the Reformation this was
not discussed but assumed, while the question of author-

Il8 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
ity — Scripture or Tradition — was pushed to the front.
In the Early Church the allegorical method of exegesis
had been employed to defend the Messiahship of Jesus
in the argument from prophecy. In the Reformation
this method was abandoned and the grammatico-histori
cal method was adopted to secure the perspicuity and
therefore the practical authority of Scripture, upon the
basis of which Luther's new apprehension of the mean
ing of salvation could be successfully defended. It thus
becomes clear how the new issues in the Reformation
period resulted in the enunciation of a new principle of
interpretation and a new exegetical method. The con
sequences of the changed emphasis in doctrine and the
changed principle of exegesis for the interpretation of
prophecy were of fundamental importance. Two cir
cumstances favored the free application of the new exe
getical principle to prophecy. The first of these was
the development of Humanism. It must be carefully
observed that the adoption of the new principle was due
to a dogmatic interest of the most compelling sort. But
the principle itself was not a dogmatic principle. It was
already made use of by Humanism, that great movement
of thought manifesting itself primarily in historical
research, which ran parallel with the Reformation.
Through the adoption of the grammatico-historical prin
ciple of exegesis the Reformation became indissolubly
connected with Humanism. It might not care to recog
nize this connection, but the connection existed none the
less, and it could not be broken without Protestantism
reverting to positions which it had abandoned. Now
the great Humanist movement which lay back of the
new exegetical method gave to it a force, a momentum,
so to speak, which it might not otherwise have attained.

LUTHER S CHRISTO-CENTRIC THEORY II9
The new method was an expression not only of the dog
matic needs of the Reformers, but of the spirit of the
age, and as such it had all the vital power in it which
is always to be found in a great principle organically
connected with the fundamental movements of human
thought in any given period. In the second place, since
the question of Jesus' Messiahship and the other questions
which preoccupied the thoughts of the Fathers and which
they attempted to answer by the allegorical method of
exegesis were no longer at stake, the new exegetical
principle was left free for a time to work out its logical
results without being hampered unduly by dogmatic con
siderations, until a new issue was raised within Protest
antism itself of which we shall speak later. We have
now reached the decisive turning-point in our discussion.
We have seen how a new principle of interpretation has
been formally adopted in the Reformation period because
of a great dogmatic exigency. We are now to observe
the effects of the new principle upon the interpretation
of prophecy. This can best be done by a study of Luther
and above all of Calvin. IV
The grammatico-historical method of exegesis means
two things : ( 1 ) that a given verse in a prophecy can
have but one meaning, (2) that this meaning must be
discovered through a study of the historical situation
which has given rise to the prophecy. The words of
Luther in his Preface to Isaiah are of the utmost signifi
cance in this connection. " It is necessary," he says,
" if one will understand the prophecy, to know how it
stands in the land, what events transpired, what the peo-

120 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
pie thought, what the relationships were which they sus
tained to their neighbors, friends or foes, and especially
what their attitude was toward their God and toward
his Prophets." ... It would not be difficult to show that
the entire development of the modern criticism of the
Prophets is implicit in this statement. Not only the
political background, both within and without the land,
is to be considered according to Luther, but also the re
ligious condition of the people and even their psychology
("what the people thought"). Such a statement in
volves in its final analysis the attempt to reconstruct the
ancient Semitic civilization out of which prophecy arose,
exactly what the biblical research of the nineteenth cen
tury has tried to do. This program of Luther means,
theoretically at least, a radical change in the attitude
adopted toward prophecy from that held by the Fathers.
They asked what a prophecy meant in the light of the
New Testament fulfilment and the whole emphasis fell
upon prediction. But in the above statement the empha
sis begins to shift. The interpreter must ask himself
what was the meaning of the prophecy in view of the
historical situation out of which it arose.
But when we turn to the actual exegesis of Luther, its
results at first sight are very disappointing. Luther was
not an exegete so much as a homilist, and he did not
rigidly apply his own exegetical principles in his inter
pretations of the Old Testament. He was in no sense
a scientific interpreter. His interests were religious,
not historical. At this point his sound exegetical theory
was crossed by another principle which plays a funda
mental part in all his interpretations of Scripture. This
is his Christo-centric theory of Scripture. " Christ," he
says, " is the point in the circle from which the whole

LUTHER S CHRISTO-CENTRIC THEORY 121
circle [of the Scripture] is drawn." ..." If you will
interpret well and surely, then take Christ with you, for
he is the man whom the whole of [Scripture] concerns."
In the Preface to his German Commentary on Genesis
(1527) he combines both principles of interpretation,
the grammatico-historical and the Christo-centric, in the
following statement : " First, one must permit the
Word to remain in its simple, straightforward sense;
secondly, he must truly understand the Word and its
kernel and feel it in his heart." The first is the scien
tific principle of exegesis; the second is his religious
principle. The " kernel " which Luther here refers to
is, as we know from innumerable passages, Christ. Be
cause of the conviction that the Scripture is Christo-
centric, the Old Testament is as much a Christian book
for Luther as it was for the Fathers. In the same
Preface to Genesis he proposes to select a book out of
the Old Testament and interpret it as he had done in
the New Testament, in order that every one may see how
Scripture everywhere agrees, and how all examples and
histories, indeed the entire Scripture through and
through, leads to the recognition of Christ. In the tract,
How Christians are to accommodate themselves to
Moses, he tells us that of the three things which the
reader is especially to mark in Moses, namely the fine
examples of laws, the examples of faith in the lives of
the Patriarchs and God's promises of Christ, the last
" is almost the best in all of Moses." In accordance with
these principles it is not surprising to find that Luther
has taken over a large part of the patristic interpretation
of prophecy.

122 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY

The Psalms are thoroughly Christologized and the
stock Messianic prophecies are adopted without scruple.
Luther accepted Gen. 3: 15 as the protevangelium with
as little hesitation as any Father. Yet while the re
ligious principle of interpretation seems at first sight to
have negatived completely any fruitful results of his
exegetical principle, this is not really the case. Luther's
interpretation of the Old Testament generally and of
prophecy in particular was after all fundamentally dif
ferent from that of the Fathers. This is seen in two
points. In the first place he does not look at the Old
Testament under the categories of prophecy and fulfil
ment, but under the categories of Law and Gospel, though
it cannot be denied, of course, that he found gospel in
the Old Testament and law in the New Testament, as he
himself tells us. Now this means that prophecy is not
viewed by him as proof. He does not use the coinci
dences of prediction and fulfilment primarily for apolo
getic purposes. His interests are not along this line.
Prophecy, with him, is simply the proclamation of the
Gospel in the Old Testament. He does not interpret
prophecy in order to make it correspond with events in
Christ's life, but in order to deduce from it new illustra
tions of the Christian message of justification by faith.
His expositions are for purposes of edification. When
he discovers all of Christian theology in the prophecy of
the seed of the woman, he does so, not in order to point
outthe marvel of the fulfilment in Jesus, but in order to
emphasize the truth and beauty of Christian doctrine.
Prophecy is not the proof of Christian doctrine but only
an illustration of it. The Prophets do not furnish argu-

THE NEW REFORMATION EXEGESIS I23
ments but texts for sermons on faith, etc. Thus the
purpose of Christologizing the Old Testament and the
use made of prophecy in this connection are entirely dif
ferent in Luther's expositions from the patristic aims
and uses. In the second place Luther was convinced
that he could discover the entire body of Christian the
ology in the letter of the Old Testament and the letter
of its prophecies. The exegesis by which he secures this
astonishing result may often be as unconvincing to us as
the ancient allegorical exegesis, nevertheless the differ
ence between the two methods of arriving at the same
result is world wide, and it is this difference which is
after all the most significant thing at this stage of the
development. One instance must suffice, but it is as
good as a hundred to illustrate what has happened
through the application of the new exegetical method.
Commenting on Gen. 22: 18 Luther says: "One must
let this saying stand according to the history just as it
sounds. They are poor weak words as you see, but God
has a different way of speaking from that of men."
Here is a recognition of the fact that the passage must
be interpreted according to the letter and not allegori
cally. But afterwards he says of it that it is the chief
saying in all of Moses and " it contains the whole of
theology in one lump." He first takes up " that little
word, seed," and seeks to prove that it must refer to
Christ even though Isaac, Jacob and all the Prophets and
saints are also Abraham's seed, because no other has
been confirmed by such miracles, and Christ also does the
work of which the text speaks and is preached through
out the earth, which is true of no other seed. This
line of argument recalls the patristic method. But
further, everything which we believe of Christ is also

124 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
found in the text, his birth, passion, resurrection and
ascension. " He must be born of a Virgin because all
heathen are cursed and what is born of flesh is a child
of wrath and death. But he cannot be born of flesh and
blood, man and wife, because he is neither cursed nor
blest, but brings a blessing. On the other hand he must
be a man and have flesh and blood, for Scripture calls
children " seed." Yet if he is to be a real child he
must have a mother, for no one can be called a child
who does not derive his existence from a mother. But
if he is not to be under the curse he cannot be conceived
in the natural way. Therefore it follows inevitably that
the mother must be really pregnant and yet not pregnant
by man. There is no other way than that he be con
ceived by the Holy Spirit. Again, all who are born of
woman must be natural men and must die, and so must
also this seed die. But if he is to bless all the world, in
accordance with the text, he cannot remain corporeally on
the earth or as king of Jerusalem rule all the world, for
the kingdom is too great. If he is to reign as an actual
presence he must exist in such a form that he can be
with every one in every place. Therefore since he must
live the life of a man on the earth, he must leave this
form of existence and enter into an immortal spiritual
existence if he is to rule in the heart of every one.
Therefore, also, he must rise from the dead and be
exalted to heaven and sit in the place where he can see
all creatures and have power over all things. He must
also be God, for if he is to give so great a blessing he
must have the power to do it. Otherwise it would be
a mockery, if he promised something and could not per
form it. But since he promises to deliver us from death
he must be omnipotent. But such power no one has but

THE NEW REFORMATION EXEGESIS 1 25
God. Since this power is given to the seed he must
unquestionably be true God and yet must remain seed,
that is, he is both true God and man. Thus we have
everything together in Christ — birth, death, resurrec
tion and his eternal reign. Who could express all such
things in such few words if the Holy Spirit himself
did not speak them ? " Examples of such expositions
might be multiplied indefinitely out of the pages of
Luther's exegetical works. The interesting thing about
them is the naive conviction that he is true to the simple
historical sense of Scripture. Luther often consciously
indulges in allegories for purposes of edification, though
he never allows them any weight in argument, but he
draws a sharp distinction between the allegory of the
patristic type and such an exposition as the one just
given. And there is a real difference. Once granted
that the blessing in Gen. 22: 18 has a Christian content,
Luther is able to draw his inferences as to the person of
Christ by certain logical processes which, from his point
of view, do not contradict the letter of the passage at
all. It is clear from such an example that a literalistic
interpretation may be just as unhistorical as an allegori
cal interpretation. The adoption of the principle that
Scripture has but one sense, namely the grammatical
sense, is not in itself sufficient. The sense must be the
grammatico-historical sense, and Luther, the homilist and
religious interpreter, is not usually interested in the latter
half of this compound characterization of the new prin
ciple. In theory he admits the demand of historical in
terpretation that an inquiry should be made into what
" the people thought," but in the example just cited this
is not done.
But at two points his religious interest coincides in a

126 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
most interesting way with an approximately historical
interpretation. The result is to rule out in principle
two large domains in which the allegorical method had
found numberless Messianic types. We have seen how
Irenaeus laid down the canon that where apparent im
moralities in the Old Testament remained unrebuked,
there we are to search for the type. The stories of the
Patriarchs furnished abundant opportunity in this con
nection for allegorizing in a Messianic interest. But
Luther's principle, laid down in his Preface to Genesis,
that the lives of the holy Fathers are to furnish the
reader with encouragements and warnings, permits him
to adopt another mode of treating the patriarchal pecca
dilloes. True to his conviction that the Old Testament
teaches Christ and faith in Christ, he assumes that the
Patriarchs are Christians and their lives examples of the
Christian virtue of faith. " We read Moses because of
the beautiful examples of faith, of love and of the cross
in the dear holy Fathers, Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham,
etc. . . . On the other hand we also see examples of
unbelief on the part of the godless, and how God punishes
Cain, Ishmael, Esau, etc." But the mercy of God is
seen in forgiveness of sin, and the glory of faith is ex
hibited in its triumph over the weakness of the flesh.
Hence in the interest of his doctrine of faith Luther
is prepared to do justice to the historical meaning of the
patriarchal narratives and admit the sins of the Patri
archs, for on the background of their sins their salvation
through faith in the mercy of God can be depicted in
brighter colors. In discussing the trick Rebecca and
Jacob practiced upon Isaac, Luther takes great satis
faction in the fact that the mother and the son are flesh
and blood like himself. Otherwise he would despair.

THE NEW REFORMATION EXEGESIS 127
He even goes to the point of saying that he takes pleasure
in " befouling them with sins as much as he can con
sistently with Scripture," for the grace of God is in
jured when we separate them from ourselves as far as
heaven and earth are separated. ..." They are bound
in flesh and blood, in which I am bound, and from this
fact we can gain hope and comfort. Otherwise we make
demigods out of them and despise the grace of God."
From this point of view Luther is ready to admit the
sins of the Patriarchs, but only on the tacit condition
that their faith be also admitted. And in his own in
genious way he is even able to interpret their sins many
times as simply an exaggerated form of faith. Thus
Abraham's lie (Genesis 12), which exposes his wife's
honor to danger, and Sarah's obedience to the instruc
tion of her husband, are both marks of faith. They
trust God to deliver them. It is interesting to notice
that in the Latin Commentary on Genesis (1536 s),
which was not begun till some nine years after the
German Commentary on Genesis (1527), there is a
notable difference. In the later work there is much less
disposition to admit the sins of the Patriarchs and a pro
portionately more earnest attempt to construe their sins
as marks of faith. A classical example of this is the
treatment of Gen. 27 in the Latin commentary, where
the faith of Rebecca and Jacob is illustrated by the
terrible risk of Isaac's curse, which they were willing to
run by their deception of him. They took this risk
because they believed in the oracle of God which said
that the elder should serve the younger. Similarly in the
German commentary on the incest of Lot's daughters he
will not excuse the Patriarch or his daughters, though
they must have had faith, else they would not have been

iI28 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
saved (contrast their mother). The story is written as
a warning that no one is so holy but that he may fall.
Nature is the same in all, but so is grace. But in the
Latin commentary he takes a much more conservative
position. Lot sinned, but only venially. Neither his act
nor that of his daughters is due to lust, but only to con
sternation. They were too terrified to know just what
they were doing. In the case of the daughters it was
wondrous solicitude for the preservation of the race
that moved the holy maidens (an idea borrowed from
the Fathers). But even in the later work there is as
little disposition to allegorize as in the earlier work. In
his comments on Gen. 30, which had always given such
offense to an historical interpretation, he takes occasion
formally and at length to reject the allegory. Thus
Luther's religious interest in what he considers to be the
faith of the Patriarchs leads him singularly enough to a
fuller recognition of the historical meaning of the com
promising narratives in Genesis than was usually ad
mitted. But in proportion as this was done the neces
sity of interpreting them allegorically and Messianically
was lessened.
But of far greater significance for the possible changes
in the interpretation of prophecy which were to be ef
fected by the new principle of exegesis was Luther's at
titude toward the Law. We have seen how the Fathers
turned the ceremonial law, to the letter of which they
could do no sort of justice, into a great apparatus of
Messianic types. This theory of the Law was com
pletely broken down by Luther and the foundation laid
for a thoroughgoing historical interpretation of it. It
is at this point that we see most clearly what could be
accomplished when an historical interpretation, made

THE NEW REFORMATION EXEGESIS 1 29
possible by the new exegetical method, happened to coin
cide with Luther's great religious interests. Since Old
Testament and New Testament as wholes must be con
strued in Luther's views as Law and Gospel, he holds
that the Old Testament as Law is abrogated in the in
terest of the Gospel, which is the religion of grace and
faith. The typical expression of the fact that the Old
Testament is Law is found in the Mosaic Law. Accord
ingly Luther practiced what was for those times a truly
startling criticism upon the Mosaic Law in the interest
of his doctrine of faith. This criticism is found in the
tract already referred to, How Christians are to accom
modate themselves to Moses, and at even greater length
in his work, Against the Heavenly Prophets. In these
tracts he is meeting the position of men like Karlstadt
and the Zwickau Prophets, who claimed that the Mosaic
Law was still binding upon Christians. He says:
" This we will not stand. . . . We will not have
Moses any longer as a law-giver, and God will not have
him either. Moses was the law-giver of the Jewish
people alone. The mouths of the Sectaries must be
stopped. When they say, Moses says so, it is written
in Moses, and so on, answer them : Moses has nothing
to do with us. . . . Moses is dead; his rule is obsolete
since Christ came. . . . Say to them: Go to the Jews
with your Moses; I am no Jew; don't bother me with
Moses." Luther is not afraid to carry out the logical conse
quences of such a position. He holds that the decalogue
itself is abrogated as Moses' law. Only in so far as it is
the law of nature is it to be obeyed. But in its prohibi
tion of images and in its sabbath law it is not a natural
law but a ceremonial. Therefore these two laws are no

130 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
longer binding. In such criticisms we can see the far-
reaching consequences of the new historical principle
when the religious interests are enlisted in its applica
tion. VI
To sum up the significance of Luther for the inter
pretation of prophecy: (1) First and foremost, his
work is epoch-making in his resolute abandonment of the
allegorical method of exegesis and his careful formula
tion of the theory of the grammatico-historical method.
The importance of this accomplishment cannot be over
estimated. It is the turning-point in the development
which we have been following. For the first time
in the history of the Church a really scientific principle
of exegesis is enunciated as the controlling principle in
interpretation. (2) Nevertheless the adoption of this
scientific principle was not due to a scientific interest, but
to a dogmatic interest. It was adopted in the interest
of the perspicuity of the Bible, which is a necessary char
acteristic of the Bible if it is to be a workable authority,
independent of ecclesiastical interpretation and of ec
clesiastical authority. At this point the grammatico-
historical method allies itself with the great Reformation
principle of the right of private judgment. The Chris
tian layman is now able to tell what the Scripture means
and need not depend on the priest for its interpretation.
(3) But since the new principle was adopted out of a
dogmatic interest, it is not surprising to find that it
was largely qualified in its application by the funda
mental religious conviction of Luther that the Bible,
throughout, teaches Christ. His Christo-centric theory
of Scripture, by means of which all of it is utilized either

THE NEW REFORMATION EXEGESIS 131
directly or indirectly to enforce the great doctrine of
justification by faith, very often cancels the natural con
sequences of his scientific principle of exegesis. (4)
At two points, however, this Christo-centric theory of
Scripture reen forces the historical principle of exegesis
in an interesting way and results in an entirely new ap
preciation of the historical meaning of the Scriptures.
By a curious backwash it drove Luther to a recognition
of the sins of the Patriarchs, which he made use of to
inculcate his doctrine of faith. In a much more direct
and conclusive way his aversion to a legalistic conception
of religion led him to a thoroughgoing and historically
true criticism of the Mosaic Law. In both connections
he adopted positions which freed him from the neces
sity of allegorizing large sections of the Old Testament,
and thus paved the way for a denial of Messianic typol
ogy in these sections. They did not have to be sub
sumed under prophecy in order to be fitted into Luther's
theory of the Scriptures. (5) With regard to the in
terpretation of prophecy itself certain fundamental ad
vances in principle were also made. The true theory of
the interpretation of prophecy is clearly and classically
stated in his Preface to Isaiah. The emphasis no longer
falls upon the correspondence between prediction and
fulfilment. Prophecy is not subsumed under apologetics
but under homiletics. Not the marvel of prediction and
fulfilment but the marvel of the Gospel in the Prophets
is now emphasized. The proof from prophecy no
longer has any real significance, since the issues of
Luther's day were no longer the same as the issues in the
Early Church. (6) Nevertheless the interpretation of
prophecy was not advanced by Luther to any apprecia
ble degree. His Christo-centric theory of Scripture

132 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
favored an unhistorical interpretation of it, and the value
of his correct exegetical principle was largely nullified.
By formulating a new and scientifically correct prin
ciple for the interpretation of prophecy and by finding
another use for prophecy than to furnish arguments for
the Messiahship of Jesus, Luther prepared the way for
a new view of prophecy, but in his exegesis of the vari
ous prophecies he made little advance. For the real
significance of Luther's principles we must look to the
work of John Calvin.

CHAPTER VII
THE REFORMATION PRINCIPLE OF EXEGESIS AND THE
INITIAL BREAKDOWN OF THE THEORY OF PREDICTIVE
PROPHECY: CALVIN I
Calvin may not unfittingly be called the first scien
tific interpreter in the history of the Christian Church.
As an exegete he is the acknowledged chief among the
Reformers. Adopting the same principles of interpre
tation as Luther did, he consistently applied them in his
commentaries as Luther did not. This is all the more
astonishing as Calvin held many theological presupposi
tions which would have logically led to a complete aban
donment of the historical meaning of the Old Testament
in general and of prophecy in particular. The most as
tonishing difference between Luther and Calvin is that,
whereas Luther's religious canon of interpretation, the
Christo-centric theory of Scripture, dominated his exe
getical method at every turn, Calvin's dogmatic theories
of Scripture controlled his exegesis only to a limited
extent. In the case of no great commentator is it more
necessary to distinguish between the theologian and the
exegete than in the case of Calvin. Because of the
consistency with which he applied his exegetical method
in spite of all the inducements of his own dogmatic theo
ries to depart from it, his commentaries can still be read
with profit.
Calvin published the first edition of his Institutes in
i33

134 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
1536, nineteen years after the outbreak of the Thesis
controversy in Germany. In this work his theories of
the Bible are formulated. In 1539 he issued the second
edition and at the same time published his first commen
tary, significantly enough, the commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans. In the dedicatory letter to this com
mentary, written to his friend Grynaeus, Calvin gives full
est expression to his ideals of what a commentary
should be. " We were both of this mind," he writes,
" that the principal point of an interpreter did consist in
a lucid brevity. And truly, seeing that this is in a man
ner his whole charge, namely to show forth the mind of
the writer whom he hath taken upon himself to expound,
look, by how much he leadeth the readers away from
the same, by so much he is wide of the mark. . . .
Verily the word of God ought to be so revered by us
that through a diversity of interpretation it might not
be drawn asunder by us, no not so much as a hair's
breadth. ... It is an audacity akin to sacrilege to use
the Scriptures at our own pleasure and to play with them
as with a tennis ball, which many before this have done."
To discover the mind of the writer — that is the goal
of the commentator. This cannot be done if the writer's
statements are to be twisted to any conceivable mean
ing as was done by the allegorists. In his comments
upon the various proof -texts urged by the Fathers out
of the New Testament to support their allegorizing (cf.
Gal. 4:21-26; 1 Cor. 9:9 and 10: 1-13), Calvin regu
larly rejects their inferences. At Gal. 4: 21-26 he pro
tests against " the licentious system " of the allegory
and points out the same tragic consequences of it which
Luther had noticed. " For many centuries no man was
considered to be ingenious who had not the skill and

CALVIN S PRINCIPLE OF EXEGESIS 135
daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious
shapes the sacred words of God. This was undoubtedly
a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of
Scripture and to take away from the reading of it the
true advantage." Calvin evidently has in mind here
the connection between the allegory and ecclesiastical
authority. He acknowledges that Scripture is " an in
exhaustible fountain of all wisdom," but denies that
" its fertility consists in the various meanings which
man at his pleasure assigns to it." " The true meaning
of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; let us
embrace and abide by it resolutely." At I Cor. 9 : 9 he
says: " (Paul) did not mean to expound that precept
allegorically, as some hair-brained spirits take occasion
from this passage to turn everything into allegories.
Thus they turn dogs into men, trees into angels and all
Scripture into a laughing-stock." It is true that Calvin
is often in danger of letting in allegory by the back-door
of typology, as he does at 1 Cor. 10: 1-13, yet even here
he protests against the allegorizing of the Old Testa
ment reference, as if it were not also to be construed
as literal history. Thus the exegetical principle of the
grammatico-historical sense is enunciated as clearly and
forcibly by Calvin as by Luther, and in one particular
Calvin's proclamation of it has even more significance
than Luther's. Luther usually states this principle in his
polemic against Rome, which took advantage of the
allegory to usurp the office of interpretation. This con
nection is at times recognized by Calvin, but more often
he is interested in the new method as a scientific instru
ment by which to probe the mind of the writer rather
than as a polemical weapon. Luther used the principle
as a sword with which to assail Rome ; Calvin used it as

I36 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
a plowshare with which to stir up the soil of Scripture
left fallow for centuries, but from now on to grow
harvests, some thirty, some sixty, some an hundredfold.

II
But how far were these fine and true principles put
into effect ? Were they adhered to " resolutely " as Cal
vin said must be done, or did other and stronger interests
paralyze them as so often happened in the case of
Luther? It must candidly be admitted that Calvin's
theory of the Old Testament was as unhistorical as
Luther's. For him as well as for Luther it was es
sentially a Christian book, and the Old Testament
worthies were Christian saints. In the Institutes his
theory of the two Testaments is set down at length.
The premise of it is found in the following statement:
" The first step in piety is to know that God is our Father
. . . but there can be no saving knowledge without
Christ. Consequently, from the beginning of the world
he has always been manifested to all the elect. . . ."
From this premise it follows that " those persons whom
God has adopted into the society of his people from
the beginning of the world have been federally con
nected with him by the same law and the same doctrine
which are in force amongst us. . . . The Fathers
[Patriarchs] were partakers with us of the same inherit
ance and hoped for the same salvation through the grace
of our common mediator." . . . The covenant of all
the Fathers is so far from differing substantially from
ours that it is the very same ; it only varies in the admin
istration " (a favorite formula of Calvin). The unity
of the two Testaments is then pointed out in three par-

CALVIN S THEORY OF SCRIPTURE 1 37
ticulars: (a) in the hopes of immortality cherished
by the Old Testament worthies, (b) in the fact that the
covenant with them was not founded upon merit, but
upon the mercy of God, and (c) in the fact that they
possessed and knew (!) Christ as the Mediator. Such
statements inspire little confidence that Calvin will be
able to adhere " resolutely " to his historical principle
of exegesis. Nor are they greatly relieved by what he
has to say on the differences between the two Testa
ments. He notes five main differences: (a) In the
Old Testament the celestial inheritance was figured by
terrestrial blessings, which is not the case in the New
Testament. Thus he observes that possession or exclu
sion from the land of Canaan is " nearly the whole sub
stance of the blessings and curses pronounced by
Moses." But this very real difference between the two
dispensations is obliterated by means of typology. The
promises of earthly rewards are figures for the heavenly
blessings, (b) The second difference is that between
a ceremonial and a non-ceremonial religion. But again
typology is introduced to cancel the distinction. The
difference is not essential, it is one of administration,
and the ceremonies are shadows of the things to come.
At this point Calvin talks like one of the Greek
Apologists or Origen. " For what," he says, " could
be more vain and frivolous than for men to offer the
fetid stench arising from the fat of cattle in order to
reconcile themselves to God, or to resort to any asper
sion of water or blood in order to cleanse themselves
from pollution? In short, the whole legal worship, if
it be considered in itself and if it contains no shadows
or figures of correspondent truths, will appear utterly
ridiculous. . . . God is a spirit and is pleased with

I38 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
none but spiritual worship." Hence he concludes:
" The Law is not irrespective of Christ." Here we
have the premise of the patristic allegorizing of the
ceremonial and the theoretical inference from it in so
many words, (c) The third and fourth differences are
summed up in the distinction between Law and Gospel.
(d) The fifth difference is that between a nationalistic
and a universal religion. " Till the advent of Christ
the Lord selected one nation." Now Calvin has
summed up in this analysis what really are the out
standing differences between the Old Testament and the
New, the recognition of which would enable his correct
exegetical method to work with freedom. But un
fortunately after conceding these differences, he turns
around and cancels the value of everything he has ad
mitted by introducing typology. The religion of the
two Testaments is after all the same; there is a differ
ence only in the administration. It only remained for
Calvin to introduce the type into the history of Israel
as well as into its laws to round out the typologizing
of the Old Testament. This he does unhesitatingly.
" Both in the posterity of David and in the whole Le
vitical tribe, as in a twofold mirror, Christ was exhibited
to the view of the ancient people." In these views of
Calvin it would seem as if we were being led straight
back to our starting point, and the various approaches
to a more historical valuation of the Old Testament
which Luther had opened up would be blocked again.
Yet there is one qualification, and it is an important one,
to be made even of Calvin's theory of the Old Testa
ment. He drew a sharp distinction between typology
and allegory. By the allegory he usually understood
Origen's extremer view of it, according to which the

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN 1 39
letter often had no meaning whatever. Calvin always
held to the reality of the letter. Further, and this is
most symptomatic of the healthy influence of the new
exegetical principle, whenever he pointed out the typical
significance of the letter he maintained at the same time
that the Israelites themselves understood the meaning of
the types. They understood the symbolism of the
promised land. " In the earthly possession which they
enjoyed they contemplated as in a mirror the future in
heritance which they believed to be prepared for them
in heaven." They understood also the Christian
symbolism of the ceremonial. " Their sacraments
served to prefigure ours in such a way that they were
even for that time true sacraments. Those who at that
time made the right use both of doctrine and signs were
endowed with the same spirit of faith with which we
are endowed." This consistent demand that the
Fathers themselves should understand the types shows
how far Calvin really is, even in his theories, from the
enigma view of the Old Testament. At the same time
his theories, as laid down principally in the Institutes,
art most dangerous to any real historical appreciation
of the Old Testament. But what of Calvin's exegesis
itself? Did it carry his theories into effect?
Ill
Calvin regularly admits, with pain admits, the sins
of the Patriarchs. Since in theory he regarded the
historical events of the Old Testament as typical, it might
have been supposed that he would explain away their
sins as holy mysteries, but he does not do so. The
drunkenness of Noah is not excused but is made the

140 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
text of a sermon on temperance. The lies of the
Patriarchs are regularly regarded as evidences of weak
ness of faith, not of a daring faith such as Luther held.
Calvin does his best, it is true, to divert the attention of
the reader from this unpleasant subject and to point
to those elements in the patriarchal stories which seem
to him to set the Patriarchs in a better light, but when
he is directly confronted by their lies he does not blink
the facts. At Gen. 12 he states very honestly the diffi
culties involved in Abraham's willingness to sacrifice
the honor of his wife and in the deceitfulness of his
stratagem. But since it is plain from the life of
Abraham, viewed as a whole, that he was actuated by
good motives, Abraham could not have been moved in
the present case by a selfish fear, but only by the fear that
God's purpose for him would be defeated. Abraham's
aim was right but he erred in the method of securing it.
The lie was evidence of a lack of faith. When
Abraham tries the same trick again (Gen. 20) he re
ceives a sharper censure. " It is impossible to excuse
his gross negligence in not calling to mind that he had
once before tempted God." For the same reason Isaac
is also "inexcusable" (Gen. 26:7). The deceit of
Jacob and Rebecca (Gen. 26) is palliated as far as pos
sible. The risks which mother and son were willing
to take showed their faith (compare Luther). On the
other hand Rebecca " darkens the celestial oracle by her
lie," and Jacob " bears the blame of rashness in that he
was distrustful of the providence of God and fraudu
lently gained possession of his father's blessing." Cal
vin seeks to throw the blame for Jacob's polygamy on
Laban as far as possible, yet " cannot altogether absolve
Jacob from blame,", and he warns against imitating the

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN I4I
example of the Fathers in all cases, rather than follow
ing the law of God. The domestic broils of Gen. 30
occasion Calvin many qualms. They must be a punish
ment, because Jacob " had been guilty of no light sin
in marrying two wives and especially two sisters." At
v. 30, he says, " It is wonderful that God should have
deigned to honor an adulterous connexion with off
spring (Bilhah might better have been called a harlot
than a wife), but he sometimes strives thus to overcome
by kindness the wickedness of men ! " At v. 14, he ad
mits that the story " has the appearance of being mean
and puerile," but finds a purpose in it in the suggestion
that it was placed here to humble the pride of the Jews,
who sprang from a beginning so mean and abject. The
stratagem of Jacob at v. 37 is expressly defended be
cause he adopted it at the command of God. Calvin
always feels on safe ground when he thinks he can in
troduce a command of God into the explanation, for,
of course, no one dares to cavil at the divine will (a
thoroughly Occamistic line of thought). ... It is clear
from the foregoing illustrations that in the question of
the morals of the Patriarchs Calvin's theories of
typology are not sufficient to offset the historical mean
ing of the narratives when it comes to their actual
exegesis. The Reformation principle of exegesis acts
even more freely at this point in Calvin's interpretation
than in Luther's.
The contrast between dogmatic theory and exegetical
practice is even more strikingly illustrated in Calvin's
treatment of the Mosaic Law. According to the theory,
the forms and ceremonies, the material rewards and
punishments, etc., are all types. The theory would
therefore justify an almost unlimited mystical exegesis of

142 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
the details. But as a matter of fact the recognition of
the type is almost entirely confined to general statements,
and the actual exegesis has little to do with it. There
can be little doubt, I think, that a commentary on the
Levitical law was a distinctly distasteful business to Cal
vin, though he did not shirk his task. But the ingenious
way in which he seeks to avoid the difficulties of it shows
how irksome it was to him. Calvin wrote a harmony of
the Pentateuch in which he undertook to analyze and
classify the various laws. The contents of the four
books, Exodus-Deuteronomy, are grouped under two
main heads, Doctrine and History. The doctrinal con
tents are again subsumed under four heads : ( 1 ) The
Prefaces to the various laws, under which the statements
relating to their dignity are grouped, (2) the Decalogue,
or the summary of the rule of a just and holy life, (3)
the Supplements to the Decalogue, namely (a) the
ceremonialia, which are subsumed under the first table,
and (b) the judicialia, or civil laws, which are subsumed
under the second table, and finally, (4) the statements
as to the ends and use of the Law, under which are also
comprised its sanctions, the rewards and punishments.
All of these lead up to Christ, who is the end of the Law.
Now the interesting thing about this analysis is that the
ceremonialia and judicialia, which give the gravest diffi
culty to the dogmatic as distinct from the historical view
of the Bible, are grouped under the two tables of the
Decalogue. " In fine they are appendages, which add
not the smallest degree of completeness to the Law, but
whose object is to retain the pious in the spiritual wor
ship of God, which consists in faith and repentance. . . .
As to political ordinances, obviously nothing will be
found in them which at all adds to the perfection of the

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN I43
second table." By thus grouping these laws under the
Decalogue Calvin accomplishes two things. On the one
hand he is able to impart to them the moral meaning
of the Decalogue; they are now protected, so to speak,
by its sanctity. On the other hand, since they really add
nothing to the meaning of the Decalogue, since they are
merely appendages, Calvin can relieve himself of the
necessity of any exhaustive and detailed discussion of
them. By this means the sharp contrast between his
exegetical method and his dogmatic theory in the treat
ment of the laws is avoided to a very considerable ex
tent. The food laws, for example (Lev. n; Dt. 14), are
subsumed under the first table. They are " exercises in
the worship of God." By means of them purity was
to be cultivated. Thus Calvin looks upon these laws from
the point of view of discipline. But if the purpose of
the food laws is restrictive and disciplinary, difficulty
arises with the prohibition of those animals which no one
would be tempted to eat. This is the difficulty which
Origen felt and from which he argued that the laws must
be allegorized. But not so Calvin. " Because men's
greediness sometimes delights in monstrous food, God
desired even in minor matters to put the rein upon them
lest they should rush with heathen nations into intemper
ance. . . ." One may think of the satisfactoriness of
this explanation what one pleases ; as an example of the
way Calvin reacted from the allegory it is most signif
icant. Again he stumbles at the view that if a mouse
should be drowned in a vessel of water the vessel itself-
would be unclean, " as if spiritual infection reached even
to things without life," but he does not allegorize. The
law is due simply to the will of God, who wishes to culti-

144 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
vate in the people a study of purity. This treatment of
the food laws stands in the most striking contrast to the
invariable allegorizing of these laws by the Fathers.
Once, it is true, Calvin in an apologetic way borrows a
patristic interpretation. On Lev. 11:3, he says,
" Whilst I fear but little confidence can be placed in the
allegories in which many take delight, I do not find fault
with that which has been handed down from the ancients,
namely, that by cleaving the hoof is signified prudence in
distinguishing the mysteries of Scripture, and by chewing
the cud the serious meditation on its heavenly doctrines,
although I cannot approve of the subtlety which they
add, namely, that those rightly divide the word who know
how to elicit the mystical sense from the letter." In
these words Calvin rejects explicitly the allegorical
method while in the midst of allegorizing!
Calvin's eagerness to seize on Lev. 1 1 : 44 at the end
of his treatment of the food laws, and, with this as a
text, to exhort to a spiritual worship of God and to warn
against reliance upon ceremonialism, is in striking con
trast to the scrupulous and painful minuteness of the pre
ceding laws. It testifies to Calvin's instinctive antagon
ism to them and thus serves to throw his general absten
tion from allegorizing into all the stronger relief. The
laws on leprosy (Lev. 13 and 14) occupy 116 verses
and usually afforded abundant opportunity to allegorize.
Calvin's sobriety here is again most exemplary. At the
outset he rejects both the allegorical and the sanitary
explanation of the laws and seeks to explain them again
simply as an exercise in purity. His typologizing is of
the mildest sort. The same may be said of his treat
ment of Lev. 16. He does not even mention the
patristic interpretation of the two goats as symbols of the

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN 145
two covenants. Fie subsumes the laws regarding the
erection of the tabernacle (Ex. 26f) under the second
command of the first table. While he holds that the
tabernacle is a type of the Church he avoids the tempta
tion to allegorize its details. After pointing out some
very general analogies between the tabernacle and the
Church, he continues, " I now descend to particulars, in
which let not my readers expect of me any conceits which
may gratify their ears. ... It would be puerile to make
a collection of minutiae wherewith some philosophize,
since it was by no means the intention of God to include
mysteries in every hook and loop, and, even although
no parts were without a mystical meaning, which no one
in his senses will admit, it is better to confess ignorance
than to indulge in frivolous conjectures." He then
refers to the sobriety with which the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews refers to this subject. Nothing
could better illustrate the healthy exegetical sense with
which Calvin approached such discussions. His position
in his exegesis of Numbers 19 (the red heifer) is similar.
While typologizing somewhat, he says, " Those who
speculate subtilely on details advance some questionable
matters. I leave them therefore to the enjoyment of
their conceits; let it suffice for us to consider generally
what God referred to in this ceremony." He denies that
the red color of the heifer symbolized sin. It was prob
ably chosen as a common color. We have already seen
how the materialistic blessings and cursings (cf. Lev. 26
and Dt. 28) were regarded by Calvin as types of spiritual
rewards and punishments, though even so the letter of
thenrwas not denied. But beyond this general analogy
he makes no attempt to explain the details in these
chapters in a mystical sense. Everywhere we meet the

I46 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
same phenomenon. The general type is urged but little,
or no attempt is made to find a mystical meaning in the
mass of legal details. Thus while Calvin satisfies his
theological presuppositions by his theoretical assumption
of the type, he usually keeps true to his exegetical con
science by refraining from any attempt to carry out his
typology in detail.
This is a fundamentally inconsistent position, and Cal
vin, at least in one remark, seems to be conscious of its
difficulty. In his comment upon 1 Cor. 10 : 1 ff., a
passage which he utilized to justify typology, he says:
" It is, however, objected that we do not find a word
of all this [typological meaning]. This I admit; but
there is no doubt that God by his Spirit supplied the want
of outward preaching, as we may see in the instance of
the brazen serpent, which was, as Christ himself testifies,
a spiritual sacrament. And yet not a word has come
down to us as to this thing, but the Lord revealed to
believers of that age in the manner he thought fit, the
secret which would otherwise have remained hid." This
passage is a remarkable evidence of the sound historical
instinct of Calvin, which demanded that the Fathers them
selves should understand the type, and at the same time,
of his keen observation that nowhere in the Old Testa
ment is any supposed type explained, a fact which
typologists would do well to ponder. Calvin's method
of reconciling his dogmatic theory and his exegesis is a
pure guess and a pretty lame one at that.
Calvin's attitude toward the morals of the Patriarchs
and toward the dogmatically indigestible mass of primi
tive law has been examined at such length because,
though it is subsidiary to our main argument, it never
theless illustrates in a striking way how, almost uncon-

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN I47
sciously, the new exegetical principle was restricting the
sphere in which Messianic prophecy could be conveniently
discovered. The great apparatus of Messianic typology
was there in theory. The premises of the mystical
exegesis were there. But in the explanation of details
the new principle of exegesis asserted itself, and conse
quently the usual flood of mystical interpretation is
dammed, till only a tiny rivulet still trickles through
Calvin's commentaries.
But when we turn to what is usually considered
Messianic prophecy in the more immediate sense of that
term, the contrast between Calvin's interpretation and
anything that has gone before is truly astonishing. Not
only, as in the case of Luther, has the argument from
prophecy, construed as prediction, ceased to have any real
significance, a most important fact, but the exegesis by
which the argument can be successfully carried through
has now been in principle completely broken down.
In the first place Calvin regularly seeks to discover
the historical background of the so-called Messianic
Psalms, which the Fathers and also Luther referred
without hesitation directly to Christ. The historical
background of Ps. 2 is David's reign. The favorite in
terpretation of v. 7 of the eternal generation of the Son is
expressly rejected. Ps. 22 also finds its historical back
ground in David's misfortunes. On v. 16 Calvin ob
serves: "If they object that David was never nailed
to a cross (compare the argument of Justin above p.
46), the answer is easy, namely, that in bewailing his
condition he made use of a metaphor (metaphorice con-
questum)." Similarly he speaks of the parting of the
garments as metaphorical ( translatitium) . These ex
positions are of special interest as the verses had always

I48 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
been interpreted exclusively of Christ. Ps. 45 is ex
plained of Solomon's marriage with the Egyptian
Princess, though with the qualification that, " under what
is said of Solomon as a type, the holy and divine union
of Christ and his Church is set forth." Ps. 47, 96 and
99 are all interpreted typically of Christ's Kingdom, but
there is no attempt to give them a personal Messianic
reference by construing Jehovah as the Messiah after
patristic fashion, and the absolute silence at Ps. 96 : 10
on the LXX addition, " from the wood," is significant.
Ps. 24 is explained of Jehovah and the temple. Calvin
argues " from the natural sense of the words " against
the error of the Papists, who refer the psalm to Christ
" knocking at the gates of the infernal regions." On
Ps. 72 Calvin says expressly, " Those who would
interpret it simply as a prophecy of the kingdom of
Christ seem to twist the words too violently. And then
we must always beware of giving the Jews an occasion
of making an outcry, as if it were our purpose
sophistically to apply to Christ those things which do
not directly refer to him." Thus in all these psalms
Calvin bases his exposition on the historical background;
he arrives at a Messianic reference only indirectly
through typology. In this respect his exposition of the
Psalms is in exact agreement with his exposition of the
ceremonial law. In both, his dogmatic interest is in the
type, but his exegetical interest is in the historical mean
ing of a given passage. The shift of the interest is due
to the subtle influence of the new principle of exegesis.
As Calvin searched for a historical background in the
Psalms, so he did in the prophecies proper. As conclu
sive instances may be mentioned Is. 9: 1-7 and chaps.
40 ff. He holds that the deliverance promised in both

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN I49
these prophecies was primarily from the Babylonian
exile. The inference which Criticism was to draw from
this observation as to their date was ultimately inevitable.
In the second place exegetical and historical reasons
led Calvin to reject absolutely some of the Messianic
interpretations which had the support of a hoary tradi
tion behind them and were most confidently accepted.
Thus he denies that the seed of the woman in Gen. 3:15
is to be interpreted of the personal Messiah on the very
just exegetical ground that " a collective noun cannot be
understood of one man only." Luther, in his German
commentary, had said without qualification, " The seed
is Christ." Gen. 49: 10 is Messianic, though Christians
have here " betrayed some excess of fervor in their pious
diligence to set forth the glory of Christ," but v. n is
correctly explained as a description of the fruit fulness
of the territory which fell to Judah, and Calvin purposely
" abstains from those allegories which to some appear
plausible " [he is alluding to the fanciful explanations
to be found in Justin or Tertullian], as he does not
" choose to sport with such great mysteries of God."
On Is. 4: 2, Calvin observes, " After a careful examina
tion of the whole I do not hesitate to regard the branch
of God and fruit of the earth as denoting an universal
and abundant supply of grace. . . . They who limit it
[the branch] to the person of Christ expose themselves
to the ridicule of the Jews, as if it were in consequence
of scarcity that they tortured Scripture for their own
convenience." The LXX reading at Is. 3: 10 (Let us
bind the just man for he is displeasing to us), a favorite
prophecy of the passion in the patristic interpretation, is
passed over in silence. The patristic interpretation of
Is. 8:1-4 (cf. above p. 45) is "a pleasing enough

150 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
ingenuity but can not at all harmonize with the context."
At Is. 63:1, Calvin says, "This chapter has been
violently distorted by Christians, as if what is here said
related to Christ, whereas the prophet speaks simply of
God himself." At Hos. 6: 2, he rejects both the Jewish
Messianic interpretation and also the Christian, which
explained the verse of Christ's resurrection on the third
day. " This sense seems to me rather too refined. We
must always mind this, that we fly not in the air.
Subtle speculations please at first sight but afterwards
vanish. Let every one, then, who desires to become
proficient in the Scriptures always keep to this rule, to
gather from the Prophets and Apostles only what is
solid." The examples already given would be quite sufficient to
show how powerfully the Reformation principle of the
grammatico-historical sense was affecting the interpreta
tion of prophecy, but the reach of this new principle is
exhibited in the third place, even more clearly and in a
more startling manner, in the attitude which Calvin as
sumed toward the New Testament method of prophetic
citations. It had hitherto been taken for granted that
the New Testament use of a passage cited from the Old
Testament determined its meaning. We have already
seen how the Fathers sought to justify their allegorizing
of the Old Testament by pointing to the example of the
New Testament writers. But the appeal to a New
Testament writer as the final authority for the settle
ment of the meaning of an Old Testament passage is in
reality to forsake exegesis for dogma. That is to say,
the meaning of an Old Testament passage is no longer
determined upon exegetical principles — the grammar,
the context, the historical background — but by the dec-

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN 151
laration as to what it means by the New Testament writer,
the assumption being that such a writer, as an inspired
man, is entirely competent to decide upon the meaning,
and back of his authority there is no right nor necessity
to go. ( The point will be discussed more at length here
after.) But when a serious attempt was made to
interpret the Old Testament Prophets exegetically, and
not dogmatically, that is, upon the principles laid down
by Luther in his Preface to Isaiah, it was soon discovered
that the meaning which was given in the New Testament
to many, if not all, of the prophecies could not possibly
have been their original, historical meaning. It is
interesting to notice how frequently Calvin says that the
Evangelists seem to twist (torquere) the Prophets,
though he never admits that they really do so. The ad
mission of the appearance of evil was forced from Calvin
by his exegetical conscience; the denial of its reality by
his dogmatic presuppositions. The question arose, and
it was a most poignant one, — Was the Reformation prin
ciple of exegesis to be qualified in order to avoid the dog
matic difficulty raised by the New Testament method of
citation? It is at this point more than anywhere else
that Calvin showed his candor as an exegete. He re
fused to allow the New Testament to determine the his
torical sense of an Old Testament passage. Not that at
times he did not yield to the pressure of the dogmatic in
terest, as for example in his treatment of Is. 7 : 14, which
must have given his exegetical conscience some very pain
ful twinges, but the amazing thing is that, with the very
high inspiration theory which he maintained and with
his theory of the unity of the two Testaments, he allowed
himself to be influenced so little in his interpretation of
the Old Testament by the New Testament method of

152 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
citation. But can the positions of the. dogmatic theolo
gian and the historical interpreter at this point be
reconciled? Can Calvin make the exegetical admissions
which he does and remain true to form? As his posi
tion on this point is of fundamental importance to our
discussion it merits an ample illustration.
There are some statements of Calvin, it is true, which
seem to indicate the very opposite of the contention that
he refused to make the New Testament interpretation
normative for Old Testament exegesis. At Is. 28:16
he prefers one of several interpretations, " both because
that meaning agrees best with the context and because
it is supported by the authority of the Apostle Paul."
" I do acknowledge," he continues, " that the Apostles
followed the Greek translation and used such liberty
that, while they were satisfied with giving the meaning,
they did not quote the exact words. Yet they never
change the meaning, but, taking care to have it prop
erly applied, they gave the true and genuine interpreta
tion. Whenever, therefore, they quote any passage from
the Old Testament, they closely adhere to its object and
design." Again at 1 Cor. 2:9 (Is. 64: 4) he rejects one
exposition, though it " appears at first view to suit better
the Prophet's context in respect of the verb, [because] it is
farther removed from Paul's meaning, on which we
ought to place more dependence than on any other con
sideration. For where shall we find a surer or more
faithful interpreter of this authoritative declaration
which (fhe Spirit) himself dictated to Isaiah, than
the Spirit of God in the exposition which he furnished
by the mouth of Paul?" This statement lays down in
so many words the principles which were later to be
come all-controlling. Yet in spite of it Calvin himself

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN 1 53
does not alter the historical meaning of the passage in
Isaiah, but only seeks to show how it is in harmony with
Paul's citation. So much for Calvin's thesis! But ob
serve how he departs from his own thesis, or at least
from the inferences which we might naturally suppose
followed from it. On Mt. 2 : 1 5 ( Hosea 1 1 : 1 ) Calvin
observes : " They who have not been well versed in
Scripture confidently applied this place to Christ ; yet the
context is opposed to this." The passage is then cor
rectly explained of the Exodus. On the other hand he
contends that it is only scoffers who say that the
Evangelist has misapplied the passage (Commentary on
Hosea). "It is skillfully accommodated (aptatur) to
the matter in hand " (Commentary on Matthew). The
explanation offered is that Hos. 1 1 : 1 is a prohetic
" analogy." " God begat the Church anew in the person
of Christ. Then did the Church come out of Egypt in
its head as the whole body had been formerly brought
out " (Commentary on Matthew). This means that
Hos. n : 1 is not a prediction in the proper sense of the
word, but the Exodus referred to in it has a typical signif
icance. The distinction between type and prediction is
recognized by Calvin himself in his statements on Mt.
2:18 (Jer. 31, 15), which are even more uncom
promising. " It is certain that the destruction of the
tribe of Benjamin which happened in his own time was
described by the Prophet. . . . Since the vaticination of
the Prophet was then [i.e. in Jeremiah's time] fulfilled,
Matthew does not mean that it was here predicted what
Herod would do, but that, by the advent of Christ, that
mourning was renewed which the Benjaminites had en
dured many ages before (Commentary on Matthew)."
The passage in his Commentary on Jeremiah is even more

154 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
unequivocal. Matthew " meant no other thing than that
the same thing happened at the coming of Christ as had
taken place before, when the whole country was reduced
to desolation. ... To no purpose, then, do interpreters
torture themselves by explaining this passage [in
Jeremiah] allegorically, for Matthew did not intend to
lessen the authority of ancient history ( ! ) for he knew
in what sense this had been formerly fulfilled. But his
only object was to remind the Jews that there was no
cause for them to be greatly astonished at that slaughter
[namely of the Innocents], for the region had formerly
been laid waste and bereaved of its inhabitants. We
now see how Matthew accommodated this passage to his
own purpose." Here there is not only no prediction but
the type itself is almost washed out. In such an exposi
tion the ha irXrjpwdjj (in order that it might be fulfilled)
of Matthew receives an extension of meaning sufficient
to relieve any difficulty which might arise out of the
Evangelist's citations, but at the same time the proof from
the minute fulfilment of specific predictions, so far as
this prophecy is concerned, is completely broken down.
And if the phrase, iva wki/jpuiOfj, is capable of being so
toned down in one instance, why may it not be in others ?
It would be difficult to prove, however, that Matthew
attached any such elastic sense to his phrase, either here
or anywhere else, as Calvin's exposition demands for it.
Calvin's lengthy discussion of the difficult case, Mt. 2 : 6
(Mic. 5:2), is also instructive. He notices the differ
ence between the Hebrew and the LXX text of the
Micah passage and that Matthew follows the latter. He
lays down the general proposition that, " It ought always
to be observed whenever any proof from Scripture is
quoted by the Apostles, that, though they do not translate

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN 155
word for word and sometimes depart widely from the
language ( ! ) , yet it is applied correctly and appropriately
to their subject. Let the reader always consider the
purpose for which passages of Scripture are brought
forward by the Evangelists, so as not to stick too closely
to the particular words, but to be satisfied with the fact
that the Evangelists never torture Scripture into a dif
ferent meaning, but apply it correctly in its native mean
ing." So much for a sop to his theory ! " But," he
continues, " there is nothing to prevent the children of
God from making careful and diligent inquiry into the
meaning of Scripture and thus being led to the fountain
by the taste which the Apostles afford." If this means
anything at all it means that we are not to rest content
simply with the apostolic method of citation, which is
only a taste, but to go to the original meaning of the
Old Testament passage, the fountain. Taking advan
tage of this permission Calvin proceeds to note the dif
ference between Matthew and Micah. " The Prophet
says that Bethlehem is little when reckoned among the
governments of Judah, while Matthew, on the contrary,
speaks highly of its rank as one of the most dis
tinguished." He then rejects the attempt to harmonize
the two passages by reading the verse in Micah as a
question (compare also the differences between the A. V.
and R. V.). Calvin holds that Matthew's "change of
language " ( ! ) " magnified the grace of God in making
an inconsiderable town . . . the birth-place of the high
est king. Although Bethlehem received this distin
guished honor, it was of no advantage to its inhabitants,
but brought upon them a heavier destruction " (Com
mentary on Matthew). Thus in one and the same
passage we have first the proposition that the Evangelist

156 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
applies the Old Testament citation in its " native mean
ing," and immediately afterward the suggestion that the
Apostles after all afford only a taste of the meaning, and
that we are permitted, therefore, to go to the fountain-
head for a deeper drink. Further, his theory does not
prevent him from admitting in the detailed discussion
of the passion an actual difference between Matthew and
Micah, and his own explanation of the difference clearly
reveals that Matthew does not give the " native mean
ing " of Micah, for the Prophet, on Calvin's own show
ing, is speaking of the humiliation of Bethlehem as a
town, whereas Matthew speaks of its exaltation as the
birth-place of the Redeemer. But this explanation only
shows that the two passages do not contradict each other,
because they refer to two different things. It does not
prove that they mean the same thing but quite the con
trary. In the Commentary on Micah he says of the
same passage : " As Matthew quotes this passage dif
ferently some think it ought to be read as a question.
. . . But what need is there of distorting the words of
the Prophet, as it was not the design of the Evangelist to
relate the expressions of the Prophet, but only to point
out the passage. As to the words, Matthew had regard
to the state of the town as it was at the coming of Christ,
when it began to be eminent; but the prophet represents
how ignoble and mean a place Bethlehem then [in
Micah's time] was.". . . Here Calvin recognizes with
out qualification that the two passages differ and at the
same time denies the admissibility of interpreting Micah
by Matthew. It distorts the words to bring them into
harmony with Matthew by interpreting them as a ques
tion. The inconsequences of Calvin in such passages
as these testify most strikingly to the difficulties into

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN 1 57
which his exegetical principle was leading him. The
frankness with which Calvin admits differences between
Old Testament prophecy and New Testament citation
is again well illustrated in his comment on Mt. 8: 17
(Is- 53 : 4)- "This prediction has the appearance of
being cited inappropriately (videtur parum apposite
citari) and even of being twisted (torqueri) into a foreign
sense (alienum sensum). For Isaiah does not speak
here of miracles but of the death of Christ, and not of
temporal benefits but of spiritual grace. Now what is
undoubtedly spoken about the impurities of the soul
Matthew applies to bodily diseases." In this statement
one of the difficulties, at least, in this citation is most
tersely and lucidly expressed. Calvin seeks to justify
Matthew's use of the prophecy by pointing to the pur
pose for which Christ healed diseases. His healing of
the physical ailments was symbolic of his power to heal
spiritual diseases. " He gave life to the blind in order
to show that he was the light of the world," etc. Here
the resort is to the type again, but this does no sort of
justice to the " in order that it might be fulfilled " with
which Matthew introduces the citation. At Is. 8:18
(Heb. 2:13) Calvin notices that the writer of the Epistle
to the Hebrews applies the passage to Christ; neverthe
less our commentator interprets it properly of Isaiah and
his children. At Ps. 40:6-9 (Heb. 10:5) the New
Testament writer seems to Calvin to twist the passage,
" since he restricts what is spoken of all the elect to
Christ alone." In both these last mentioned instances
Calvin's refuge is in typology. At Ps. 8:5 (Heb.
2:7) he will not translate Elohim by " angels," although
it is so translated by the writer of Hebrews following
the LXX, but he will adhere to the translation " God,"

I58 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
as that " seems more natural (genuina) and as it is
almost universally adopted by Jewish commentators."
He then points out very clearly the great difficulty in
the application of this verse in Hebrews. " While the
Psalmist here discourses concerning the excellency of
men and describes them in respect of this as coming near
to God, the Apostle applies the passage to the humiliation
of Christ." His comment upon this is as follows :
" What the Apostle says in this passage [Heb. 2 : 7] con
cerning the abasement of Christ is not an explanation
[of the text], but by way of enriching the subject he
turns to his own purpose what was spoken in a different
sense (non est exegeticum sed kot' itrc^epyaa-lav ad
suum institutum deflectit quod alio sensu dictum
fuerat). For Paul did not hesitate at Rom. 10:6 in
the same manner to embellish the words of Moses in Dt.
30: 12 [a very happy comparison, though in his earlier
Commentary on Romans Calvin hedged somewhat on
this passage]. The Apostle, therefore, in quoting this
psalm had not so much an eye to what David meant,
but, making an allusion to the words, . . . applies this
(diminution) to the death of Christ and that (glory)
to his resurrection." This is practically an admission
that the writer of Hebrews uses the words of an Old
Testament passage simply to adorn his page and with
out scrupling to preserve the original meaning. This
same admission is found in his comment upon Paul's
use of Ps. 68: 18 at Eph. 4:8, in which "he does not
so much explain the meaning of the text as by a pious
turn accommodates it to the person of Christ (non tarn
interpretatur quam pia deflexione ad Christi personam
accomodat)." A franker recognition that the Apostle
does not give the historical meaning of the words could

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN 1 59
not be made. Yet at the beginning of his exposition of
Ps. 8:6 Calvin maintains that the Apostles did not
" twist " the words of the Old Testament to a foreign
sense ! IV
From the foregoing illustrations of Calvin's attitude
toward the Old Testament in general and to prophecy
in particular we may make the following deductions.
In his general attitude toward the Old Testament he
works out an elaborate theory of typology in conscious
antagonism to what he considers to be the mistakes of
the allegory. By this theory he seeks to do justice to
his dogmatic presuppositions with regard to the Old
Testament on the one hand and to the Reformation
principle of exegesis on the other. In all his typologiz
ing he is interested to maintain the reality of the literal
and historical meaning of any given passage. This is
the starting-point. But the principles which enter into
the law or into the event construed historically are held
by him to be capable of a larger application. The laws
or events of the Jewish dispensation thus become for
him types or pictures of the spiritual truths of the
Christian dispensation. Upon the basis of such a
theory there is the strongest inducement to emphasize
the spiritual fact of which the literal meaning is sup
posed to be the type. When this is done typology has
no practical advantage over the allegory pure and
simple. For the literal meaning will be ignored in the
interest of the more important spiritual meaning. But
it is just this danger which Calvin avoided to a very
remarkable degree. He confined his typologizing to
theoretical statements and general examples, whereas his

l6o PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
exegesis was always concerned with the literal and his
torical meaning of the passage. This means that Cal
vin's principle of exegesis really triumphed over his dog
matic theories. Too much emphasis can scarcely be laid
upon this fact. With every inducement which a strong
dogmatic bias would suggest to dwell exclusively on the
typical meaning of the various laws and historical inci
dents, and to discover types in the details of the laws
and the histories, as a matter of fact his commentaries
refrain from these " pleasing ingenuities " and search
out the historical meaning. We may therefore conclude
that Calvin's typology, so far as the exegetical method by
which it was carried out is concerned, was really in the
interest of securing the historical sense of a passage as
against the allegorical. Both history and law were in
terpreted historically to a most surprising degree: The
exegete triumphed over the theologian. The conse
quence was that the field of Messianic prophecy became,
through the work of Calvin, exegetically greatly re
stricted in spite of his typologizing. When we examine
Calvin's attitude toward the prophecies proper, and espe
cially toward their fulfilment in the New Testament, the
same distinction must be drawn between Calvin the exe
gete and Calvin the theologian, and even in a sharper
way. As in the case of Luther, the theological interest
in the proof from prophecy which had dominated patris
tic exegesis largely disappeared. The new issues had
thrown it into the background. Hence the great im
portance attached to the exactness of the correspondence
between prediction and fulfilment was not, at least from
this point of view, so keenly felt. Calvin's exegesis of
prophecy couldj^ therefore work more freely. Accord
ingly we find Calvin, though denying as a dogmatic theo-

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN l6l
logian any real difference between the original meaning
of a prophecy and its manner of application in the New
Testament, as an exegete unhesitatingly admitting such
differences. As an exegete he refuses to allow the
method of citation by the New Testament writers to de
termine the historical meaning of the passages in their
Old Testament setting. In all the examples given above
he adheres to the historical meaning of the prophecies.
Again, as a dogmatic theologian he will not allow that
the Evangelists really misapply Scripture, though their
peculiar methods of citation often compel him as an exe
gete to say that they " seem to twist " it. He explains
their use of the Old Testament prophecies by his theory
of types. This is what he has in mind when he uses the
terms " analogy " or " accommodation." But here, too,
as in the instance already cited, the exegetical interest is
convincingly demonstrated to be superior to the dog
matic, for the resort to the theory of the type is due to
Calvin's desire to be true to the historical meaning of
the prophecy. He rightly sees that the historical mean
ing is in no sense a real prediction of the event supposed
to be fulfilled in the New Testament; therefore he sub
stitutes the fulfilment of a type for a fulfilment of a
prediction. The prediction is reduced to an " analogy."
This means that Calvin as an exegete, in his fearless
application of the • Reformation principle of exegesis,
had succeeded in emasculating the New Testament
tvo -n-XriputOrj of any distinctive meaning. Thus the argu
ment from prophecy construed as prediction, which had
already lost any real significance, was now exegetically
broken down by Calvin. Would the exegetical results
of Calvin be adhered to or would they be qualified in
time by the dogmatic interests for which Calvin also

l62 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
stood? This leads us to a consideration of the develop
ment in the post-Reformation period. But before pass
ing to its discussion it will be well to gather up the results
of our study of Luther and Calvin in their relationship
to the general movement of thought which we have been
following. ( i ) The apologetic interest in the sixteenth
century had completely shifted as compared with the
apologetic interest in the patristic period. The issues
now were the doctrines of salvation — justification by
faith, an individual experience, or justification by works
through ecclesiastical mediation — and the question of
authority — either Scripture, which supported the doc
trine of the Reformers, or Tradition, which supported
the contention of the Papal Church. The Reformers in
their defense of the doctrine of justification by faith
had been compelled to assert the sole authority of Scrip
ture. (2) But to be an authority the Scriptures must
be perspicuous. (3) To maintain its perspicuity the
allegorical method of exegesis, which had been handed
down from the patristic period, must be abandoned, and
the Reformation principle of the one grammatico-his
torical sense must be substituted. The enunciation of
this new principle was mainly the work of Luther. In
its application to prophecy the new principle logically
led to the following results, which are most clearly ex
hibited in the works of Calvin, where the principle finds
its most sincere and consistent application, (a) The
grammatico-historical method, which interprets accord
ing to the context and historical background of the
prophecy, occasions a change of emphasis. The atten
tion is unavoidably diverted from the asserted fulfilment
of the prophecy to its original meaning, (b) The

CALVIN THE EXEGETE AND THEOLOGIAN 163
grammatico-historical method of interpretation revealed
the fact that many passages hitherto referred directly to
the Messiah could, in their historical sense, be at most
indirectly and typically referred to him. (c) It revealed
the fact that other passages referred to the Messiah by
means of the mystical exegesis had no reference to him
at all, not even typical, (d) It revealed the fact that the
meanings attributed to many Old Testament prophecies
by the New Testament writers were not the meanings
originally attached to them by their authors themselves.
(e) It revealed the fact that the " in order that it might
be fulfilled " of the Evangelists had in many cases no
sound exegetical basis whatever. It is not claimed that
Calvin was acutely conscious of all this, but it is claimed
that these conclusions are latent in his exegesis and many
times are practically admitted by him, though he usually
balances the admissions with theoretical statements
which in reality involve him in a self-contradiction. (4)
Such a radical departure from the received methods of
prophetic interpretation did not at once arouse the oppo
sition which one might have anticipated. The great is
sues had changed, and men's minds were not so en
grossed as in the Early Church by the argument from
prophecy. Moreover the results were obtained under
cover of a method of exegesis which had become a dog
matic necessity to the Reformers. But in the startling
results gained by Calvin lay the possibilities of a great
strife. The Reformation principle of exegesis had been
adopted in the interest of the authority of Scripture.
But the results obtained by its application to prophecy
seemed in turn to compromise the authority of Scripture.
We must now turn our attention to the conflict which

I64 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
arose between the Reformation doctrine of Scripture
and the Reformation principle of exegesis in the age of
Protestant scholasticism, and observe the effect of this
conflict upon the interpretation of prophecy.

CHAPTER VIII
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE REFORMATION PRINCIPLE
OF EXEGESIS AND THE POST-REFORMATION DOCTRINE
OF SCRIPTURE AND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE IN-

As has already been pointed out, the two great Refor
mation doctrines are justification by faith and the sole
authority of Scripture. The post-Reformation period
intellectualized the former principle, externalized the
latter principle and devitalized both. The apologetic in
terest in the anti-papal polemic was responsible for these
consequences. For our present purposes it will be neces
sary to sketch the development only of the post-Refor
mation doctrine of Scripture.

I
The Council of Trent in its Fourth Session formulated
its doctrine of authority to the following effect. " The
truth and discipline (of the Gospel) are contained in
the written books and the unwritten traditions which
were received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ
himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy
1 The citations in this chapter from Gerhard, Quenstedt, Turrettin
and Owen are taken out of the works of these writers, those from
Glassius out of Edouard Konig's Einleitung in das Alte Testament.
For the remaining citations I am chiefly indebted to Diestel's
Geschichte des Alten Testaments. 165

l66 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Ghost dictating, and have come down to us, transmitted
as it were from hand to hand [observe the repetition
of the ancient view that the New Testament books are
to be subsumed under the idea of Tradition; compare
P- 83]. [The synod] following the example of the
orthodox Fathers [observe their inclusion in the Tradi
tion] receives and venerates with an equal affection of
piety and reverence the books both of the Old Testament
and the New Testament — seeing that one God is the
author of both — as also the said Traditions. . . as hav
ing been dictated either by Christ's own word of mouth
or by the Holy Ghost and preserved in the Catholic
Church by a continuous succession." After giving a list
of the canonical books, including certain of the Old
Testament apocrypha and the New Testament antilego-
mena (Hebrews, James, II Peter, Jude, II and III John
and Revelation), it pronounces its formal anathema upon
those who do not accept them along with the aforesaid
traditions. The Vulgate is next adopted as the authen
tic edition of the Scriptures, and finally the Council lays
down the doctrine of interpretation. " In order to re
strain petulant spirits it decrees that no one relying on
his own skill shall, in matters of faith and morals . . .
wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own sense, pre
sume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to
that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to
judge of the true sense of the Holy Scripture, hath held
and doth hold. . . ." Bellarmin, the great expounder of
Tridentine theology, states the position here set forth in
an even more uncompromising fashion, if that is pos
sible. " We assert that the whole doctrine which is
necessary as respects faith and morals is not contained
in the Scripture and that in addition to the written word

THE POST-REFORMATION DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE 167
of God there is also an unwritten word of God, i.e. the
divine and apostolic tradition," and of course it was the
Pope who was the incarnation of this tradition. Against
these boldly stated positions Lutheran and Reformed
alike combined to formulate the dogma of the infallibil
ity of Scripture. In place of the infallible Pope we are
to have the infallible Word. The inspiration of the
Scriptures had always been assumed in the Church as a
matter of course, and this inspiration was usually sup
posed to be of the highest degree. What was prac
tically a verbal dictation theory was held by most of the
Fathers and Schoolmen. Luther inherited this theory
from the scholastic theologians, but in his case it was
qualified very materially. Calvin also held substantially
to the same theory. But it had never been formally
worked out in all its bearings as was now to be done in
the interest of a thoroughly fortified doctrine of scrip
tural infallibility. The doctrine now took its place as a
Locus, usually the locus primus, of Protestant dogmatic
theologies, and was elaborated along three lines: (1)
the infallibility of the content of Scripture, (2) the in
fallibility of its text and (3) the infallibility of the
Canon. In order effectually to secure the infallibility of the
content it was thought necessary rigorously to exclude
every human element from Scripture, and at this point
the verbal dictation theory of inspiration was introduced
in its most precise and logical formulation. According
to this theory the real author of Scripture is God the
Holy Spirit. The biblical writers were not authors in
any true sense of the word, but mere calami, penmen,
passive agents. Thus Gerhard analyzes the causa ef
ficient of Scripture into a " principal " and an " instru-

l68 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
mental " cause. " The principal cause is the true God,
one in essence, three in person." The instrumental
causes of Scripture were the men peculiarly called and
elected of God to consign the divine revelation to writ
ing, and who are therefore justly called " amanuenses of
God, hands of Christ, notaries and secretaries of the
Holy Spirit, since they neither spoke nor wrote with any
proper human will but fepopxvoi wo tov Trve'u/MiTds aylov, acti,
ducti impulsi, inspiriti et gubernati a Spirit o Sanctu ( !)
When, therefore, any canonical book is called Book of
Moses, Psalter of David, Epistle of Paul, this is merely
with the meaning of service, not with the meaning of
principal cause." " God was with them," says John
Owen, the great Puritan divine, " and by the Holy Ghost
so spake in them . . . that . . . their tongue in what
they said or their hand in what they wrote was 'et sopher,
no more at their own disposal than the pen in the hand
of an expert writer. They obtained nothing by study
or inspiration, by inquiry or reading. Whether we con
sider the matter or the manner of what they received or
delivered or their receiving or delivering it, they were
but an instrument of music, giving a sound according to
the intention and skill of him that strikes it." If one
were indisposed to accept this theory he was graciously
presented by John Owen with the alternative of Rome
or atheism. Quenstedt expressed the same view with
equal stringency. He combats the statement of Grotius,
" that there was no need that the histories should be dic
tated by the Holy Spirit," and maintains that " when
Luke wrote these things ... he did not put them down
from the relation of others or from his own memory,
but from divine inspiration, of the Holy Spirit, who
directed the mind and the pen and suggested the things

THE POST-REFORMATION DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE 169
to be written and the words in which they should be
written." These scholastic theologians were fond of
combating their opponents by the reductio ad absurdum.
This theory of theirs itself culminated in a reductio ad
absurdum when in 1659 the theological and philosophical
faculties of Wittenberg condemned Beza's view that the
Greek of the New Testament contained barbarisms and
solecisms as blasphemous.
But of what value is such a theory of inspiration if
the text has become corrupt ? " But what, I pray," says
Owen, " will it advantage us that God did so once de
liver his word if we are not assured also that that word
so delivered hath been by his special care and providence
preserved entire and uncorrupt unto us. . . ." " Among
the arguments," says Gerhard, " by which the Papists
labor to show that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament
is not authentic [Trent, it will be remembered, set up the
Vulgate as authentic], this one takes the lead, that the
Hebrew text has been corrupted in many places either by
the malice or carelessness of men." Divine providence,
he argues, would prevent such a catastrophe, otherwise
the foundation of the Church would be destroyed. His
reductio ad absurdum of the Catholic position is that
if Scripture were corrupt, it would follow that God would
be either unwilling or unable to preserve the text of
Scripture, and Christ and the Apostles would have to be
called to court because they failed to rebuke the Jews
for their sacrilege in corrupting it! The reductio ad
absurdum of Gerhard's own position is that he and his
comrades in dogmatic sins against history were obliged
to advocate the originality and inspiration of the Hebrew
vowel points! Christ made the jot and the tittle an
integral part of the Law (Mt. 5: 18). As Gerhard in-

170 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
terpreted the tittle as a reference to a vowel point, he
found the originality of the vowel points supported by
the highest authority! The infallibility of the contents
and text having thus been secured, but one thing more
was necessary.
The Council of Trent had declared for the equal au
thority of Tradition with the Scripture and of certain of
the apocrypha along with the more generally accepted
portions of the Bible. Against both these positions a
divine and infallible delimitation of the Canon must be
asserted. Chemnitz, in his Examination of the Council
of Trent (1565-73), had earlier elaborated a theory of
the Canon to the following effect: God had revealed his
will in the beginning to Adam and this revelation had
been handed down through the Patriarchs by oral
tradition. Having become corrupted in Egypt it was
renewed by Moses and committed to writing, in order to
be preserved from further corruption. The Pentateuch,
written by Moses, was placed in the ark and guarded by
the Levites. Joshua and the Prophets gave no new
revelation, but contributed " more illustrious interpreta
tions." Their books were deposited by the side of the
Pentateuch in the ark. Thus the Canon was gradually
formed. This theory was adopted by Gerhard. He
holds that the Canon was automatically closed when the
last book was written by a prophetic and inspired man.
But this theory did not satisfy the ever increasing dogma
tic thirst engendered by the heat of Protestant polemics.
It was necessary that the process just described should be
authoritatively closed. Buxtorf in his great work, Tiber
ias (1665), completed the theory of the Canon by holding
that Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue (an in
stitution which in reality had no historical existence),

NEW TESTAMENT THE NORM OF INTERPRETATION I7I
among whom were the inspired men, Zechariah, Haggai,
Malachi and Nehemiah, collected all the inspired books
together after the Exile, excluded the false ones, formed
the others into one corpus, and deposited them in the
Holy of Holies where they remained till the advent of
Christ. The dogmatic interest in this elaboration of
Chemnitz's theory is beautifully revealed in the state
ment of Carpzov : " It was needful that the composi
tion of the Canon should be public, not private, as it does
not suffice, if a book is to be canonical, that it be divinely
inspired, but this is required in addition, that it be
divinely ordained and consecrated and handed down to
the Church for a rule of faith and morals." These men
conceded to the synagogue of the Jews an authority
which they denied to the Christian Church, as Karlstadt
long before pointed out in criticizing an analogous posi
tion adopted by Luther. The consequences for inter
pretation in general and for the interpretation of pro
phecy in particular of this snug but utterly impossible
theory of a threefold infallibility are exceedingly interest
ing. II
In the first place, the theory led to a typological treat
ment of the Old Testament which went far beyond the
modest limits set for it by the exegesis of Calvin and
which in its practical results could scarcely be distin
guished from the patristic allegory. At this point we
have to consider the connection between the verbal dic
tation theory of inspiration and another principle of in
terpretation dear to all the Reformers, namely, that
Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture. We find the
formulation of this hermeneutical principle in terms of

172 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
the verbal dictation theory in the following thesis of
Quenstedt : " The certain and infallible interpretation
of Scripture can be gained from no other source than the
Scripture itself; for Scripture, or rather the Holy Spirit
speaking in and through Scripture, is its own legitimate
and absolute interpreter." Gerhard gives us the follow
ing naive syllogistic formulation of the same view: (a)
He who is the principal and chief author of Scripture
is the chief and authentic interpreter of Scripture, (b)
The Holy Spirit is the principal and chief author of
Scripture, (c) Ergo, he is the authentic interpreter.
Now it was very clear on examination that the Bible was
not equally perspicuous in all passages. Hence the
above general canon of interpretation resulted in the
further special canon that the more obscure passages of
Scripture were to be interpreted by the clearer passages,
or by the analogy of faith which was supposed to be
drawn from the clear passages. Into the relationship of
the analogy of faith to interpretation it is not necessary
to enter in this connection except to say that it meant
that exegesis was in most cases completely subjected to
the creed. But in the interpretation of prophecy the
principle that the obscure passages are to be interpreted
by the clear passages means that a prophecy, the more
obscure passage, must be interpreted in the light of its
fulfilment, the clear passage. We find Gerhard ex
pressly reaffirming the thesis of Irenaeus that a prophecy
before its fulfilment has no clear or certain exposition,
and maintaining that " the best interpretation of all the
prophetic vaticinations can and should be sought out of
the fulfilment described in the New Testament." The
dogmatic interest involved in making the New Testament
writers normative for the meaning of an Old Testament

NEW TESTAMENT THE NORM OF INTERPRETATION 1 73
passage may be made clear if, following the proof-text
and syllogistic method of the post-Reformation theolo
gians themselves, we construct the following syllogism:
Major premise-Gerhardus loquitur: " When all Scrip
ture is given by the immediate afflatus of the Holy Spirit
and is fleonrewTos ( God-breathed ) , then all things in it are
o-vva\rjdr] and agree together, so that nothing is contrary
or repugnant to or dissident from itself " ; minor premise-
Glassius loquitur: " For why do the sacred writers in
the New Testament cite the words of Moses and the
prophets from the Old Testament? Surely in order to
gain faith for their writings. But what faith can they
gain if they usurp in bad faith the words of the authors,
twisting or, what is worse, perverting their intention and
meaning? " Conclusion-Witsius loquitur: " It must
be held that the theopneustic doctors [in this connection
the New Testament writers] show us the way and
method by which we ought to proceed in the elucida
tion of types and hand us the key for the unlocking of
these things." In other words, if the Fathers, on the
basis of their theory of inspiration, could cite the New
Testament writers to justify their allegorizing, certainly
these Protestant theologians could justify their typolo
gizing in the same way. Their hard and fast theory
of inspiration and biblical infallibility absolutely com
pelled the acceptance of the New Testament method of
citation as determinative of the Old Testament mean
ing. How far the idea could lead that the New Testa
ment was normative for the interpretation of the Old
Testament, may be seen in the statement of Amyraldus,
who belonged, moreover, to the Reformed Church and
to the very liberal school of Saumer, that " what the
Apostles offered in this matter [i.e. in interpreting

174 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Scripture] is an example according to whose norm all
the other theologians should conform all their thought
and meditation." On the basis of such principles the
prophecies became as completely separated from their
historical background as they were in the patristic
exegesis. Thus, though Gerhard theoretically lays down
in the beginning of his theology the excellent principle
that " that sense is no doubt intended by the Holy Spirit
which is gathered from the words taken in their proper
and native meaning," yet, when he comes to the end of
his massive work and is discussing the theories of the
Millenarians, he holds that, while certain prophecies are
to be interpreted literally and historically, as Is. 7: 14
(!), others are to be received "mystically, typically,
symbolically and allegorically." To the latter class, he
says, " belong those which treat in metaphorical terms
of the state of the Church militant in the New Testa
ment and of the state of the Church triumphant in
heaven. For if any one will adhere too strictly to the
words, he would be compelled to hold that the earthly
Jerusalem would again be rebuilt, that the Israelites
would again be collected from all the nations, that
corporeal and external sacrifices would again be offered
and that even the Levitical law would again be rein
stated " — a imost interesting and significant observa
tion. He then adds this formula: "Just as the
Apostles describe the things of the future age in terms
of the present age, so the Prophets describe the things
of the New Testament in terms of the Old Testament."
At a later time Francke of the Pietistic school referred
fifty psalms directly to Christ and argued from Luke
24 : 44 that in the case of each psalm it must first be
proved that it cannot refer to him. Rambach adduces

SURRENDER OF THE REFORMATION PRINCIPLE 1 75
thirty-nine proof-texts (sedes classics) for the type and
revived the theory of Irenaeus, that if the literal sense
contained anything unworthy of the Patriarchs it must
be construed typically. On this principle he interprets
Samson's marriage with Delilah as a figure of Christ
who loved the Church taken from the gentiles, while
Zeltner on the same principle actually defended the
polygamy of the Patriarchs as a " schema typicum."
Gerhard himself allegorizes the tabernacle furniture
with the ingenuity of a Clement of Alexandria. The
seven golden candlesticks signify Christ, the Light of
the World, Aaron's rod that budded typifies Christ
sprung from the dry root of Jesse, the altar of incense
likewise denotes Christ, for there is no altar pleasing
to God except Christ, and upon this altar spiritual in
cense is to be placed, i.e. our prayers must rely on the
merit of Christ. Gerhard says of the sacrifices gen
erally, " The principal end of the sacrifices was to re
mind of the offering of the Messiah in the future on
the altar of the cross."
Now all this means that the Reformation principle of
exegesis, namely, the one grammatico-historical sense,
is in the way of being completely abandoned. We have
seen how Calvin's theories of typology endangered this
principle but how his sober historical sense usually kept
him from any fanciful application of his theories. This
was not the case with those who came after him.
Typology, instead of being restricted by exegesis, now
completely dominates it, until at last we actually have
the admission that there is more than the one sense of
Scripture. There is not only the historical sense which
the words themselves give, but also the mystical sense
which was intended by the Holy Spirit. This idea is

176 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
expressly formulated by Glassius, whose work, Philo-
logia Sacra (1623), was commended by the faculty of
Jena, was welcomed by Gerhard, and may be considered
to represent the current views of the time on her-
meneutics, though more especially among the Lutherans.
" The sense of Scripture," says Glassius, " is duplex,
literal, and spiritual or mystical. ... In this thesis the
assertion is not indeed made that everywhere and in
every text and individual passage of Scripture this
double (sense) ought to be recognized and accepted.
But concerning Holy Scripture the mode of speech
(sermo) is of this kind, that in certain places which the
Scripture points out as it were with raised finger, it is
not to be explained in a literal sense, but, beyond the
literal sense which is derived from the words, it admits
also a mystical sense, i.e. the Holy Spirit himself in
tends a certain mystery or spiritual meaning in such a
text, it having been first literally understood and ex
pounded. . . ." Again, he says, " The sense of
Scripture is that which God, the author of the Scriptures,
sets forth in and by the Scriptures for men to recognize
and understand. But in many texts of Scripture God
set forth not only that which is gathered immediately
from the words, but also something more sublime and
mysterious." The reason for the affirmation of this
double sense in Scripture is exhibited very clearly in
Glassius. It is the New Testament use of the Old
Testament. The story of the brazen serpent (Nu. 21)
is to be taken in the historical and literal sense, but also
" the thing itself [probably the supposed natural symbol
ism of the serpent on the pole] and the express con
firmation of the Redeemer (John 3:14, 15) make us
certain that the Holy Spirit understood and declared at

SURRENDER OF THE REFORMATION PRINCIPLE 177
the same time that the Messiah must be exalted on the
cross. ... If it is said that Christ only made an ac
commodation of that history to himself, I respond, I
concede the accommodation; but the question is whether
he made it beyond the intention of the Holy Spirit
speaking in the written history. Certainly this cannot
be affirmed. Therefore it follows that Christ made
such an accommodation to himself as at the same time
to explain by himself the mystical sense of the Holy
Spirit which He intended in the history." Similarly
Glassius holds that Melchizedek was not only a type of
Christ at the time when the Epistle to the Hebrews was
written, but long before, when Melchizedek was alive,
and therefore the application of Gen. 14 in Heb. 7
was agreeable to the intention of Scripture and the Holy
Spirit. But Glassius does not stop with this. He
elaborates the mystical sense itself into an allegorical, a
typical and a parabolic sense. He tried, it is true, to
restrict the license which this gave the interpreter to
turn the Scripture again into " a nose of wax," by intro
ducing the three criteria of raritas, concinnitas or agree
ment with the analogy of faith, and utilitas or homileti-
cal value, but his attempt was abortive as the illustra
tions of exaggerated typology already cited testify. It
is interesting to compare with this position of Glassius,
the Lutheran, the statements of the Reformed theologian,
Francis Turrettin, of Geneva. He maintains, it is true,
that there is but one true genuine sense of Scripture, but
holds that this sense can be twofold, simple and com
posite (!). The simple sense is the historical sense,
which " contains the declaration of just one thing and
signifies nothing else." " The composite or mixed
sense is found in oracles which refer to a type; a part

I78 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
of it is found in the type and a part of it in the antitype.
But these oracles do not contain two senses but two parts
of one and the same sense intended by the Holy Spirit,
who, along with the letter, is mindful of the mystery!"
Turrettin is even able to apply the term allegory to the
composite sense. He distinguishes two kinds of
allegory, allegoria innata or inherent allegory, and
allegoria illata or the allegory read into a passage. The
former is contained in the composite sense as a part of
it, because it was intended by the Holy Spirit [the allu
sion is to the stock passages, the brazen serpent, Gal.
4, etc.]. This is also called by Turrettin the mystical
sense and is " sacred " because it is intended by the
Spirit, and it has power to prove dogmas because the
Spirit is its author. The allegoria illata is that which is
added by men, and here the compliments of Turrettin
are paid to Philo, Origen and the Fathers. It is clear
that such statements are mere trifling with the theory
of the one grammatico-historical sense. But it is only
fair to state that these men attempted to avoid the con
sequences of their theories, though to no purpose.
Thus, commenting on the use of Jon. 2 : 1 in Matthew
12:40, Glassius remarks that the literal sense is that
which is signified by the words themselves and has to
do only with the Prophet Jonah in the belly of the
fish. But the mystical sense " is that which is signified,
not by the words themselves, but by the thing signified
by the words," and accordingly the mystical sense refers
to Christ in the tomb. That is, the words themselves
do not have two senses, but the events or things described
by the words may have. If the words themselves may
have two senses, then God the author of Scripture can
put more into the words of Scripture than the penman

SURRENDER OF THE REFORMATION PRINCIPLE 1 79
who wrote them was aware of; the "fecundity" of
Scripture, of which the post-Reformation theologians
so often speak, would then be found in its phraseology.
This was the theory which was at the basis of the ancient
allegorizing and was congenial to the thought of those
days, when men were familiar with the oblique nature
of the heathen oracles. But for the post-Reformation
theologians the fecundity of Scripture was found not in
its wording but in its subject-matter, and therefore, in
stead of the allegory, we have the type. So far as the
practical results for exegesis were concerned they, were
the same, but the latter theory did more formal justice
to the principle of the single sense of Scripture. The
distinction which Glassius drew between the single sense
of the words and the double sense of the things de
scribed by the words was taken advantage of and more
precisely formulated by others whose Protestant ears
were shocked by the way Glassius had expressed him
self with reference to the two senses. Calovius opposed
these statements of Glassius, and Quenstedt, following
Calovius, draws the following sharp distinction : " The
sense of the words or sayings is one thing, and the typical
significance of a thing or a history described in Scripture,
which is intended by God, is another. For God is able
to intend something by a certain history, but when the
history is described, the words by which it is described
do not have a double sense, one literal and the other
mystical, but the sense of them is one; yet through the
thing itself described in the words God desired to set
before the eyes of men at the same time something
else, yet not at all by the words which described it."
By this position Calovius and Quenstedt sought to avoid
the Scylla upon which Glassius seemed to be in danger

l8o PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
of shipwreck. But in fleeing Scylla they were engulfed
in a Charybdis of their own which in some respects
proved even more fatal. This leads us to the last point
to be made in the criticism of the post-Reformation
exegesis. Those who held to a double sense could still find room
for an historical sense. But those who denied the
double sense and at the same time held to the normative
value of the New Testament for the interpretation of
prophecy, could only hold to the mystical sense, i.e. that
sense of a prophecy which the New Testament put upon
it. According to the Reformed theologian Rivetus the
distinction between the literal (historical) sense and the
spiritual sense is absurd, since the Scripture affords only
the sense of the Holy Spirit. It is significant that
Quenstedt prefers the term " literal sense " to " histori
cal sense." According to his view the literal sense of
an Old Testament prophecy is not what would seem to be
the historical sense, but the sense which the New Testa
ment gives it. In this theory Protestant scholasticism
has returned to that to which it is nearest of kin, Roman
Catholic scholasticism (cf. the view of Gerson above
p. 112). It is bad enough to distinguish two senses;
it is worse to confound them, for this means the obliter
ation of the historical sense entirely. It is probably a
dim consciousness of this that led Turrettin to the fol
lowing absurd statement in which he seems to try to
balance between Glassius and Quenstedt. " The literal
sense is sometimes taken more broadly for the entire
complex of the composite sense intended by the Holy
Spirit, whether in type or in antitype, and so contains
also within itself (sub se) a mystery [here the literal
sense is identified with the mystical sense or the allegory,

SURRENDER OF THE REFORMATION PRINCIPLE l8l
which is what Turrettin really means by his composite
sense]. Sometimes it is taken more strictly for that
which the words immediately and directly indicate and
so is distinguished from the mystical sense, for this latter
sense is not so much signified by the words as by the
things signified by the words. . . ." Here there is an
admission of two senses in agreement with Glassius.
It is a relief to know that his more celebrated and
clear-thinking son, Alphonse, broke altogether with
these contradictory and impossible statements of the
father and denied the normative value of the New Testa
ment for the original meaning of the Old Testament.
To what exegetical crimes the identification of the literal
sense with the mystical may lead is well illustrated in
Quenstedt's murder of the contextual meaning of Hos.
ii : i. He objects to Gerhard's interpretation which
maintained that the verse referred immediately and
historically, or sensu litterali, to Israel, but immediately
and prophetically, or sensu mystico, to Christ. " In this
way many senses would be constituted of one and the
same biblical passage, as the Papists here would have it."
[Note the apologetic interest in his attempt to maintain
the Reformation principle of exegesis.] 1 Accordingly
Hos. 1 1 : i must be referred in its literal sense directly
to Christ, and the following astounding interpretation
is offered, in support of which Quenstedt is able to cite
Osiander, Tarnovius and Calovius among the Lutherans,
and Gomarus and Rivetus among the Calvinists.
" Although Israel is a boy, uneducated, tender, weak,
and unable to control himself, nevertheless I loved him.
1 Turrettin shows the same apologetic anxiety. " The many places
which, are cited by the Papists to prove a multiple sense only show
that there is a composite sense, in type and in antitype, which is
fulfilled in various stages, first in type and second in antitype."

1 82 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Then, lest he should entirely perish, if left to himself
and without a guide, out of Egypt I called, i.e. decreed
to call in his own time, not the boy Israel, but as it
distinctly says, my son, i.e. the Messiah, who should re
ceive and guide Israel lest in his imprudence he should
precipitate ruin upon himself. Thus, while antecedents
and consequents are referred without any distortion to
Israel, the words which are cited in Matthew can be ac
cepted in the literal sense of Christ." 1 In such a passage
as this post-Reformation dogma has completely tri
umphed over Reformation exegesis as illustrated in
Calvin. It is no wonder, therefore, that to the men whose
views we have been discussing and illustrating the re
sult at which Calvin had arrived in his interpretation
of prophecy could not fail to be offensive. How could
his frank admissions of differences between Old Testa
ment prophecy and New Testament citation square with
these high theories of inspiration and with the principle
of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, controlled as that
principle was by these theories. No doubt Calvin also
had a very high theory of inspiration, but it had not
been drawn out and elaborated by him in the formal
way in which it was subsequently developed by the post-
Reformation scholastics. Only when this was done did
the essential disagreement between his theory of in
spiration and his exegetical results become apparent, as
1 With the above astonishing interpretation of Quenstedt may be
compared the following rabbinic gloss upon Jacob's lie, " I am Esau
thy first-born." The sentence is to be read, " I am (the one who
is to receive the Decalogue which begins with I), Esau is thy first
born." ( ! ) The Protestant theology of the seventeenth century
was often more closely akin to rabbinic theology and method than
it realized.

SURRENDER OF CALVIN'S EXEGETICAL RESULTS 183
it had not become to the great Genevan himself. The
more logically and sharply Calvin's theory of inspira
tion was defined, the more inconsistent with it was his
exegesis of prophecy seen to be. Furthermore, the
typical or mystical sense which Calvin allowed naturally
tended to become the most important sense, especially
for those who were interested in dogma rather than in
history. Was it not the sense which the Holy Spirit
himself intended? The supreme exegetical interest
would be to discover this mystical sense and it would
therefore ignore more and more the historical sense.
Accordingly the development after Calvin was almost
altogether along the lines of his theory of typology
rather than along the lines of his principles of exegesis.
The results of his exegesis were most distasteful. If
any doubt is still left that we have correctly interpreted
Calvin's attitude toward prophecy, it should be entirely
dissipated by the criticisms passed upon it by the post-
Reformation theologians. They saw clearly the incom
patibility of his exegesis with the orthodox theories of
prophecy and Scripture. It is not surprising, therefore,
to learn that Calovius praised Cocceius because " he did
not snatch away with his Calvin the many oracles of the
Old Testament from Christians or render them ambig
uous, but explained them dexterously of Christ," or to
hear that Glassius blamed Calvin for denying the
Messianic reference in Is. 63 : 1-6. It is not surpris
ing to discover that in 1593 Hunnius of Marburg pub
lished a book with the title Calvinus Judaizans, or that
the same Hunnius wrote another work, De sacrosancta
Maiestate, autoritate, fide ac certudine sacra; scriptures,
which became typical for the treatment of this subject
in Lutheran apologetics, and in which one of the proofs

184 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
adduced for the divinity of the Scripture is the fulfil
ment of prophecy. It is a significant fact that the man
who attacks Calvin so vigorously defends at length
the infallibility of the Bible and revives the proof from
prophecy, this time not to prove the Messiahship of
Jesus, but to prove that God, who knows all things and
therefore the events which are to come, is the author
of the Scripture.1
. Thus we meet with the strange and instructive
phenomenon that the principle of the one grammatico-
historical sense, originally enunciated by the Reformers
in order to maintain the doctrine of the authority of
Scripture, which had been undermined by the allegorical
method of interpretation, is now for all practical pur
poses abandoned by the post-Reformation theologians
in the interest of an erroneous development of that
doctrine, and the results which Calvin had obtained
through the honest application of the Reformation prin
ciple of exegesis are now either ignored or rejected in
favor of the post-Reformation doctrine of infallibility.
Through their adhesion to this doctrine the post-Re
formation theologians were confronted in their interpre
tation of prophecy with a dilemma, either horn of which
meant exegetical disaster. If, as the orthodox theory
of infallibility demanded, the New Testament methods
of citation were absolutely normative for the meaning
of the Old Testament prophecies, then there must be
allowed either a double sense to the prophecies, one
historical and the other mystical, in which case the
Reformation principle of exegesis is practically sur
rendered, or, if the singleness of the sense is adhered to,
1 Calvin had hardly more than sketched out this argument in the
Institutes. And it is given a very subordinate position.

DOGMA OR EXEGESIS 1 85
the historical sense must be altogether discarded in favor
of the mystical, called literal only by courtesy, in which
case all barriers against typologizing are set aside and
the historical meaning of the prophecies is as completely
lost as in the patristic allegory. Unfortunately, though
not unnaturally, the interpretation of prophecy thus be
came indissolubly bound up with the inspiration con
troversy. A delicate and difficult alternative was
presented to Protestant theology. Its doctrine of
Scripture was hammered out in its great controversy
with Rome. It was this doctrine which had come to
seem to the average Protestant, equally with the doctrine
of justification by faith, the article of the standing or
falling Church. But Protestantism must either practi
cally abandon the Reformation principle of exegesis or
modify very materially the post-Reformation doctrine
of Scripture. In the attempt to interpret prophecy the
absolute incompatibility of the two principles was most
clearly revealed. Were the New Testament writers to be
regarded as giving the norm for the meaning of the Old
Testament prophecies, as the Fathers always argued?
Dogma said they were to be so regarded; exegesis said
they were not. There can be no compromise at this
point. The alternative is absolute. A choice must be
made. The post-Reformation theologians made their
choice and, as could have been anticipated, landed them
selves to all intents and purposes back with the Fathers
whom they affected to repudiate. But was this to be the
final choice of Protestantism ? The answer to this ques
tion depends upon the outcome of the inspiration con
troversies

CHAPTER IX
THE CHOICE OF THE ALTERNATIVE, AND FINAL
CONCLUSIONS
It lies outside the scope of this treatise to trace the
development of the inspiration controversies of the last
three hundred years. It is sufficient to observe that in
their essence they are a struggle between the Reforma
tion principle of exegesis and the post-Reformation
doctrine of Scripture, between an historical and a dog
matic interpretation of the Bible.1

The inspiration controversies have made it clear which
of these alternatives Protestant scholarship has slowly
but surely determined to accept. While the post-
Reformation theologians clung to the doctrine of an in
fallible Scripture, Protestant scholars have followed the
lead of the Reformation principle of exegesis. In the
1 Into this struggle many factors have entered, some of them no
doubt rationalistic and anti-supernaturalistic. But so far as the
connection of these controversies with the interpretation of pro
phecy is concerned, the question of the supernatural has, strictly
speaking, nothing to do. It was simply a question as to whether
Protestant scholarship would interpret prophecy historically, in line
with the principles of the first Reformers, or allegorically on the
basis of a certain theory of inspiration. The possibility or impos
sibility of predictive prophecy did not in principle enter into the
discussion. 186

RESULTS OF THE INSPIRATION CONTROVERSIES 187
controversy of the seventeenth century which raged
over the lower criticism of the Bible, the death blow was
struck at the verbal dictation theory of Scripture and
the infallibility of the text. The testimony of the great
polyglots, which were published in and immediately after
the Reformation, to the corruption of the text was too
overwhelming for even dogma, blind as it ordinarily is
to the true significance of historical evidence, success
fully to dispute. There is no longer any serious at
tempt in orthodox circles which make any pretense to
follow scholarly methods of research to support the
theory of an errorless text of Scripture. This is un
doubtedly an illogical position for those to hold who
still adhere to a dogmatic view of Scripture, as they
could easily discover if they would return to the pit out
of which they were dug, in other words familiarize
themselves with the logic of the post-Reformation
theologians. The attempt to hide from themselves
this defect in their logic by a resort to the supposed
errorlessness of the original autographs is as ineffectual
as the proverbial futile camouflage of the ostrich.
The admission, even though it is a half-hearted one,
of the present corruption of the text is all important.
It subtracts all practical value from the doctrine of
infallibility, for the infallibility of the original auto
graphs has only a theoretical and academic interest.
Therefore when once the fallibility of the text of
Scripture was established the next step was inevitable.
In the great battle of the nineteenth century over the
higher criticism, the smoke of which has scarcely yet
cleared away, the fallibility of the content was estab
lished and an historical conception of Scripture has been
substituted for a dogmatic conception. This involves

l88 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
a change in the conception of the Canon. There is no
longer any such thing as an infallibly authenticated
Canon of Scripture. The biblical books are canonical,
if one wishes to retain the word, in a new sense, which
takes up within it, however, the truth that lies in the
earliest use of the term. They are the historical norms
of the Hebrew and Christian religions in so far and
only in so far as they are the books in which these re
ligions find their classical expression. Thus the doc
trine of the infallibility of Scripture, which had been
developed along the lines of the infallibility of the text,
of the content and of the Canon, was completely broken
down in the inspiration controversies. But what does
this mean for the interpretation of prophecy?
II
We have seen how the Reformation principle of
exegesis was enunciated by Luther and Calvin in an in
tensely dogmatic interest. It was formulated in order
to secure the perspicuity of the Bible and so to protect
it as a final authority against the claims of the Pope
to be its only lawful interpreter. This principle, be
cause enunciated in a dogmatic, rather than an historical,
interest, at first succumbed, when the very principle
which it was called in to protect became endangered by
its own energetic operation. But in the purging fires
of the inspiration controversies this Reformation prin
ciple became freed from the dogmatic interest which
had swathed it and stood forth in its own true character
as the scientific principle of historical research. The
great Humanist movement which ran parallel to the
Reformation had now entered into the development of

HISTORICAL EXEGESIS 1 89
Protestantism. It did this in many ways but in no way
so directly and influentially as through the scientific prin
ciple of exegesis applied to the Scriptures. But when
once this stage has been reached and the exegetical prin
ciple of the one grammatico-historical sense has been ap
plied to the interpretation of prophecy, it is not to be
wondered at that a principle which attained such remark
able results even in the hands of Calvin, hampered as it
then was by the strongest dogmatic considerations, should
arrive at more far-reaching consequences than Calvin
ever dreamed of, when moving freely and flexibly as a
scientific principle. The inevitable result has been to dis
cover that the New Testament writers not only seemed
to twist the Scriptures from their original meaning but
actually at times did do so, and that Calvin's generaliza
tion of the iva irX-qpwOfi into a prophetic analogy inevitably
leads to the denial of any predictive Messianic prophecy
in the proper sense of that phrase. These admissions
cannot be avoided. Protestantism, which adopted the
Reformation principle of exegesis in self-defense, must be
prepared to accept the consequences of its own act. The
theory of Messianic prophecy construed as prediction
must be abandoned. In closing it is well to balance the
losses and the gains which are involved in this admis
sion. Ill
The interests which are supposed to be secured by the
maintenance of predictive prophecy are fourfold: (1)
the proof of inspiration in particular, (2) the proof of
the Messiahship of Jesus, (3) the proof of the super
natural in general, (4) the justification of the Millennial
hope. It must be candidly admitted that the denial of

I90 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
predictive prophecy affects these various interests in a
radical way. But it is claimed that what is given back
is of far more value than what is taken away, that the
denial of predictive prophecy is not simply a work of
destruction, but it is a liberating process which clears the
way for a profounder and more spiritual appreciation of
all these interests which have just been mentioned.
Undoubtedly the denial of predictive prophecy neces
sitates a fundamental change in our ideas of inspiration.
On the one hand this denial implies that the Old Testa
ment Prophets predicted many things which never have
been and never can be fulfilled. On the other hand it
implies that the New Testament writers assigned mean
ings to Old Testament passages which cannot possibly
have been intended by their original authors. Neither
of these implications is consistent with the inspiration
theory which has been current in the Church. But this
result is not to be deplored; it is to be welcomed. It
cannot be too strongly insisted upon that predictive
prophecy has always been immediately connected with a
non-moral theory of inspiration. This connection is not
accidental but essential. On the predictive theory the
Prophet is able to project himself centuries beyond his
own day and place himself in circumstances and scenes
absolutely alien to his thoughts and experiences. To
take a striking example outside the sphere of Messianic
prophecy and yet immediately connected with the theory
of predictive prophecy as applied to Messianic times
— Isaiah in the eighth century b. c. is supposed to be
able to project himself into the totally changed situation
of the sixth century b. c. and predict the redemption of
the Jews from exile by Cyrus. Now there was nothing
jn his own experience which would enable him either to

RECONSTRUCTION I9I
do this or, if he did it, to understand its meaning. Such
a prediction could only be the result of a direct revela
tion from heaven which was psychologically unmediated.
But this is simply to say in other words that the inspira
tion of the Prophet was a purely mechanical process and
that the Prophet himself was a mere passive agent of the
Holy Spirit, a pipe by which the heavenly reservoirs of
wisdom were tapped, or in the language of the post-
Reformation theologians a calamus, a penman, an
amanuensis of the Holy Spirit. What is true of such an
example as the one just given is true also of the whole
range of Messianic prophecy as this has been commonly
interpreted. To the Prophet himself his own prophecies
were enigmas which could not be understood until the
fulfilment. Thus in proportion as the emphasis is laid
upon the predictive theory of prophecy, exactly in that
proportion will the verbal dictation theory of inspiration
be implied. Now the objection to this theory of inspira
tion which I would urge is not its impossibility, but its
meaninglessness for the Prophet himself, and therefore
its non-moral character. The Prophet is not a real man
any longer. Inspiration has paralyzed his normal
powers, has isolated him from his own day and genera
tion and placed him in an absolutely unreal world.
There is an artificiality about the whole conception of the
inspiration of the Prophet and the function of predictive
prophecy, when looked at from the point of view of the
Prophet himself, which is incompatible with any real
moral significance in his act of prophesying. On the
modern view all this is changed. The inspiration of the
Prophet is no longer a mechanical process but a pro
found spiritual experience. He is not a machine but a
man. As a man he receives his revelations and as a man

I92 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
he gives them. The shepherd, Amos, hears God's call
as a lion's roar, and the husband, Hosea, hears it at his
desolated hearth-stone. The Prophet is not to be
thought of as uttering enigmas whose real meaning he is
unable to comprehend himself, but as preaching pro
found truths the significance of which he is intensely
aware of, and with a purpose in proclaiming them which
is immediate and moral. When the hand of the Lord
was strong upon Isaiah (Is. 8: 11) this did not insulate
him, but made his reaction to the electric thrill of the
historical crisis in which he then was more immediate
and morally significant. And this leads us to the next
consideration. On the theory of inspiration which
underlies the theory of predictive prophecy the predic
tions of the Prophets had even less moral significance
for the people who heard them than for the Prophet who
uttered them. If they were enigmas to the Prophets,
how much more so to the people. It might be supposed
that the inspiration which suggested the enigmas to the
Prophet also suggested their interpretation, but how can
this be supposed in the case of the people? Are they
also to be thought of as caught up along with the Prophet
into the third heaven, where they heard unutterable
things? The difficulty which exists at this point is
clearly revealed in Calvin's admission that there is noth
ing in the Old Testament itself to explain the types in
a Messianic sense, and therefore it must be supposed that
the Holy Spirit in some way (Calvin does not suggest
how) teaches the people the meaning of the types. Thus
the predictive theory of prophecy, which turns the
prophecies into enigmas, breaks down the moral signifi
cance of the prophecies for the people who heard them.
The modern theory of prophecy emphasizes the relation-

RECONSTRUCTION I93
ship of the Prophet to the spiritual and moral needs of
his own day. It lays the emphasis not upon prediction
and fulfilment, which always removes the interest away
from the prediction to the fulfilment, but upon the con
ception of the Prophet as a preacher and reformer. This
centers the attention not upon the hidden meaning of the
prophecy, to be revealed hundreds of years later, but upon
the obvious meaning of the prophecy for the time in
which it was delivered. The work of Elijah now be
comes the typical work of the Prophet. In his work
prediction plays but a small part, and there is no
Messianic prophecy in it whatever, though he became
the type, and rightly so, of the forerunner of the Messiah.
Elijah is primarily a reformer and what is true of him
is true of the great literary Prophets. They are not to
be thought of as uttering enigmas which neither they
nor any one else could understand, but they were men
thoroughly alive to the historical situations of their own
day and generation, in which they were intensely active
workers. To take another illustration outside our im
mediate subject of Messianic prophecy — the modern
scholar asks what possible meaning there is in Daniel's
predictions to the Jews of deliverance from the persecu
tions of Antiochus Epiphanes at a time when all they
desired was to be delivered from the tyranny of Babylon.
To compare small things with great, it is as if a dentist
should undertake to comfort a patient suffering from a
violent toothache by telling him that he would eventually
recover from a far worse attack five years later. The
question of the supernatural is not so much involved in
the interpretation of Daniel as the question of plain
common sense. Thus the modern view of prophecy
emphasizes its moral element by connecting it with

194 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
the spiritual experience of the Prophet through whom it
was delivered (a moralized view of inspiration) , and with
the needs of the people to whom it was originally deliv
ered (a moralized view of the function of prophecy).
In place of the penman we get the preacher, in place of
the enigma we get the sermon. The modern view agrees
with Paul's, who said that he would rather speak five
words with his understanding that he might instruct
others than ten thousand words in a tongue. The result
is that never before in the history of biblical interpreta
tion has the Prophet been clothed with such a vital
interest as at present, or the moral grandeur of his work
and its significance for later times, as well as for the
Prophet's own day, been so fully recognized. Granted
that many of the anticipations of the Prophets did not
come to pass at the time or in the way that they expected,
this detracts in no way from the conception of them
as preachers of righteousness and expounders of a pure
religion in the midst of the moral darkness and chaos of
the ancient world. From the same point of view from
which ancient prophecy is considered, the question of the
interpretations of the Old Testament by the New Testa
ment writers may also be explained. The inspiration
theory which underlies the idea that interpretations of
the Old Testament must be accepted as infallibly authori
tative is again the same theory of inspiration which
underlies the predictive theory of prophecy. By this
theory the New Testament writers are rendered immune
to the conditions of thought and modes of argument im
posed upon them as children of their own age. Such a
conception the modern theory of inspiration again
repudiates. Now the question involved in a discussion
of the New Testament methods of citation is not

RECONSTRUCTION 195
whether Jesus was truly the Messiah or not, but it is a
question of how this fact is to be proved. Here it must
be admitted that the New Testament writers followed
in their proof the general exegetical method of their day.
They did not always hold to the strict historical sense
of the original, but they allegorized and typologized. In
so doing they presented the proof from prophecy which
appealed most forcibly to their own minds and which
they believed would be most convincing to the minds of
their contemporaries. It was an ad hominem argument
based upon a method of exegesis considered as legitimate
by their opponents in the case of their own sacred books.
At this point we must recognize that the New Testa
ment writers who interpreted the prophecies were
children of their day, in exactly the same way as the
Prophets who originally uttered them were children of
their day. The form of their argument was historically
conditioned. We have no evidence that they surpassed
in scientific acquirements the generation in which they
lived. But an exegetical method belongs to the realm
of science, not of religion. Why should we therefore be
troubled to find Matthew or Paul or John following the
scientific method of interpreting sacred books in use in
their day? If they had possessed at their disposal the
full critical apparatus of modern scholarship, they would
have been largely unintelligible to their contemporaries.
But while in the interest of clear thinking it must be
recognized without reservation that the method of
exegesis in the New Testament does not differ in the
slightest degree in principle from the method followed
by the Greeks or the Jews or the Fathers, it must also
be admitted in the interest of a just historical apprecia
tion that in the application of this method the New

I96 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
Testament writers, as has already been pointed out (p.
69), were far superior to the extra-canonical writers.
They did not play upon words or indulge in grotesque
interpretations except in rare instances (Gal. 4:22 and
Mt. 12:40). Jesus' use of the Old Testament is
especially conspicuous in its sobriety. He and his fol
lowers were not interested in its historical meaning but
they did understand the religious significance of the Old
Testament, and it is surprising how true their exegesis
usually was to its spirit. From this point of view it
may be admitted that the New Testament interpretation
of the Old Testament is the truest interpretation. It re
veals what is permanent in the Old Testament, and
Augustine's aphorism still stands — the Old Testament
is patent in the New Testament — even though we may
not deduce all he did from this principle. But it does
not follow that we are bound by the exegetical method
of the New Testament writers or that we discredit them
when we admit that the emphasis which they laid, in ac
cordance with their method, upon a literal correspondence
between prediction and fulfilment is not satisfactory to
us. We seek to get at the result at which they aimed
by a different scientific process more adapted to the
modes of thought in our own times. Thus, while the
denial of predictive prophecy radically affects our
theories of inspiration, it prepares the way for a much
truer and more spiritual conception of it. Inspiration
is now immediately related to experience and thereby be
comes moralized as it had never been before.
It has just been stated that we seek to get at the same
end as the New Testament writers aimed at, but by a
different way. By the argument from prophecy con
strued as prediction the New Testament writers sought

RECONSTRUCTION 197
to establish the Messiahship of Jesus. Now this doctrine
in its original sense has lost much of its meaning for the
Christian Church. The immense importance at one time
attached to the Messiahship of Jesus has tended to keep
alive the doctrine and along with it the argument by
which it was supported, but in Christian theology the
question of Jesus' divinity, or more precisely his deity,
has thrown the importance of his Messianic character
into the background. But is there then no real connec
tion between Jesus and prophecy, and no religious interest
to be conserved in establishing a connection? Is the
Gnostic contention correct and is the unity of the two
Testaments to be abandoned? Or is not, rather, Mar
cion's conception of a Christ " suddenly sent " after
all an historically erroneous and religiously vapid con
ception ? " From God nothing comes suddenly because
there is nothing which is not ordered and arranged by
God." Jesus himself made the claim that he came to
fulfil the Law and the Prophets. Is this claim a total
misconception of his own ministry? The context in
which these words were spoken will help us to answer
this question. They were spoken in the Sermon on the
Mount and in that part of it which deals with the deep
ening and broadening of the principles of the Old Testa
ment. Not a word is said in this connection about the
fulfilment of predictions. Just as Jesus fulfilled the
Law not by emphasizing the letter of its observance but
by pointing out its wider reach and deeper import, so he
fulfilled prophecy, not because he is the fulfiller of
prophetic predictions but because he is the fulfiller of pro
phetic ideals. In the former case the emphasis is laid upon
the adventitious and morally meaningless correspond
encies between isolated prophecies and isolated events

I98 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
in Jesus' life. The prophecies are enigmas and the ful
filments are signs. And the more unexpected and im
possible the fulfilments are, the more handy they become
as signs, as the Fathers themselves pointed out. Christ
must somehow ride both the ass and the foal of the ass,
as Matthew informs us, in order to meet the conditions
of the prophecy,1 and Jonah in the fish's belly becomes
a prophecy of the burial and resurrection of Christ. On
the modern view of prophecy the emphasis is laid upon
the great ethical and spiritual sequences running between
the Old Testament and the New. Jesus does not point
to Jonah in the belly of the fish, but to the men of
Nineveh, who were to rise up in the judgment and con
demn that generation because they repented not at the
preaching of Jonah, and because, though a greater than
Jonah was there, all they wanted of him was a sign.
The sermon again takes the place of the sign as proof
and the argument for the Messiahship of Jesus pro
ceeds along moral lines.2 But in all this there is a hint
also of the change which is to be effected in our views
of the supernatural. The proof of the supernatural in
Christianity has been based on two series of phenomena,
the miracles of the Bible, which are supposed to be the
1 Matthew alone of the synoptists refers to Zech. 9 : 9 as fulfilled
by Jesus at the entry into Jerusalem, and by a slight change in the
Greek of Mark, which is covered up in the R. V, he makes the
Lord sit on both animals, not on the clothes, as the R. V. seeks to
suggest. Compare Mt. 21 : 1-7 with Mk. 11 : 1-7.
2 The application of the experience of Jonah to Christ's burial in
the tomb is again contributed by Matthew and is notably absent in
Luke. It could not have been a part of Jesus' original discourse
as it is directly contrary to the purpose of it. Jesus was rebuking
the demand of the Pharisees for a sign. He points them to the men
of Nineveh who repented at the preaching of Jonah, and to the
queen of the South who came to hear the wisdom of Solomon.

RECONSTRUCTION I99
evidences of God's omnipotence, and the fulfilments of
prediction, which are supposed to be evidences of God's
omniscience. The latter line of evidence will be seriously
impaired if predictive prophecy is given up. Does this
mean, then, a denial of the supernatural? It does so
only if the supernatural and the miraculous are held to be
the same thing. The correctness of this identification
cannot be admitted. The miraculous is only a supposed
evidence of the existence of the supernatural. This
evidence in the present case is found to be exceptionally
dubious. But the denial of the satisfactoriness of a cer
tain line of evidence for a thing is not the same as deny
ing the existence of the thing itself. As a matter of
fact the new views of prophecy afford a much stronger
evidence for the genuinely supernatural than the old
views. The new view of prophecy does not concentrate
its attention upon a series of unconnected predictions
whose truth depends upon their minute, literal fulfilment,
but it looks upon prophecy as a great organic movement
in the history of Israel, extending through the centuries,
and in its moral power and grandeur presenting a
phenomenon absolutely unique in the ancient world, and
most easily explicable on the assumption of a super
natural guidance. Prophecy is not to be regarded after
the analogy of the classic mantic; but it is a kind of sub
lime philosophy of history, whose controlling principle,
in its treatment of the history of the race, is an unshaken
faith in the providential guidance of the Living God,
whose great practical purpose is to illustrate and empha
size the supremacy of the Law of Righteousness in deter
mining, under God, the weal or woe of man, and whose
crowning glory is its inspired optimism as to the final
struggle between good and evil in the race, when all the

200 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
various threads of human history shall be woven into the
banner of the Church Triumphant. It is when we look
upon prophecy in this larger way and as an organic whole
that we obtain a broader basis for apologetics. We may
now admit that individual Prophets failed in their predic
tions, that there was, as Luther himself recognized, some
wood, hay and stubble mixed in with the pure gold, that
such Messianic predictions as there were, were not ful
filled in any real sense in Jesus' life, and yet retain our
faith in prophecy as a great historical and religious move
ment which found its consummation in Christianity, and
see in this marvelous development the strongest evidence
of its supernatural character and abiding truth. We are
no longer compelled to stake all on the questionable cor
respondencies of prediction and fulfilment.
There is a final interest which the denial of predictive
prophecy immediately affects and that is the Millennial
hope. By this hope is not meant the expectation already
referred to that the kingdoms of this world are finally
to become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ,
that we are to look for a spiritual consummation of this
world order which will be satisfying to the moral
demands of the conscience of the race. But by the
Millennial hope is meant an expectation of a. particular
way in which this consummation is to take place, the
setting up of an earthly kingdom and the reign of Christ
for a thousand years, with various accompanying signs
and wonders in heaven above and the earth beneath and
in the waters under the earth. The denial of predictive
prophecy effectually vetoes such expectations. William
Miller, the founder of the famous Millerite movement,
in his original essay, published in 1835, makes the fol
lowing significant argument : " At [Christ's] advent his

RECONSTRUCTION 201
forerunner was spoken of — ' one crying in the wilder
ness ' — the manner of his birth — a child born of a
Virgin — the place where — Bethlehem — the time of
his death — seventy weeks — the star that appeared, the
stripes he received, the miracles he performed, the taunt
ing of his foes, all was literally fulfilled. Then why not
suppose that all the prophecies concerning his second ap
pearance will be as literally accomplished as the former?
Can any one show a single reason why not?" ... In
this paragraph Miller, though probably quite uncon
sciously, repeats the argument of Justin Martyr which
we have quoted above (p. 19). In it we have the
justification of the Millennialist interpretation of
Scripture. Its premises are an inerrant Bible and the
fact of predictive prophecy. If the prophecies of the
First Advent were as literally fulfilled as has always been
claimed, the attempts of these students of Scripture to
unlock the remaining enigmas that must refer to the
Second Advent, because not yet fulfilled, must be recog
nized as legitimate. There can be no such thing in an
errorless Scripture as an unfulfilled prediction. All
those, therefore, who share with the Millennialists their
two premises of an inerrant Scripture and the predictive
theory of prophecy, are precluded in principle from
criticizing the Millennialist position. Fault may be found
with specific chronological calculations, errors may be
pointed out in the exegesis of this or that passage, but
no exception in principle can be taken to the attempt
to fix the times and the seasons with astronomical cer
tainty. It all depends upon the discovery of the right
key. If the secret has not been unlocked before this,
it is because the true key has not as yet been found. But
this must not deter faith from further study. Previous

202 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
failure must stimulate, not check, still more careful
search for the key that will not remain forever lost.
On the other hand, if the correspondencies which the
Church has always supposed to exist between the
prophecies and the events of the First Advent do not.
really exist, then the various Millennialist attempts to readi
the signs of the times are so much labor wasted, and the
peculiar forms which the Millennialist hope takes must be
relegated to the place where they properly belong — the
sphere of Christian mythology. Here again the alterna
tive is a sharp one. But the revival of the Millennial
hopes at the present time and the rapidity with which they
seem to be spreading are rather discouraging indications
of how little the churches are aware of what has been
actually accomplished in the last hundred years in the
way of rightly understanding the Bible. Good Christian
people go to school and college and acquire facts about
nature and history which are utterly at variance with
the forms of religious thought in which they have been
raised. Yet they cling doggedly to these forms and still
wonder why religion seems to be so unreal to them or to
have so little bearing upon everyday life. The renewed
interest in Millenarianism at this time is a striking indi
cation of the fact that a very large number of Christians
still lack the first and most important premise for the re
adjustment of the Christian religion to modern thought,
without which it must inevitably, even though gradually,
cease to be a living force. This premise is an apprecia
tion of the real facts as to the Bible and its interpreta
tion which historical research has placed in our hands.
In what has preceded I have sought to show that,
though certain conceptions must be altered and certain
interests seem at first sight to be sacrificed if the thesis

RECONSTRUCTION 203
of this essay is accepted, the results of our study are not
simply destructive. They contain within them the basis
for new views of inspiration, of the supernatural, of the
relationship of Jesus to the Old Testament, which are
more satisfying to modern thought and more helpful to
modern needs. Because the forms of religious faith and
the arguments by which it is supported are revised from
age to age, this does not mean an abandonment of the
essence of our faith.
The wonder of the Christian religion is its power of
adaptation. It is a living organism because it grows and
changes, though remaining true to its life principles.
When it ceases to grow, when its power of adaptation
fails, then its death-hour will have struck. In the new
views of inspiration, of the supernatural and of the con
nection of Christ with prophecy, which a denial of the
predictive theory of prophecy has necessitated, it has been
found that the spiritual and moral interest has in each
case superseded the interest in the strictly miraculous.
The prodigy of fulfilment has given place to the wonder
of a moral consummation. What is true in these other
interests which the denial of predictive prophecy affects
is preeminently true in the case of the Millennial hope.
This hope is a purely apocalyptic hope and implies not
a moral but a crassly miraculous consummation of
history. Its outlook upon society is pessimistic. The
world is steadily growing worse instead of better.
Nothing can save it but a deus ex machina. In fact
society itself is incapable of any redemption at all ; only
individuals here and there will be saved by the interven
tion of the Lord. The moral and spiritual forces re
leased by the First Advent will miserably fail except in
isolated instances, and the World, which at the creation

204 PREDICTIVE PROPHECY
was pronounced by the Creator " very good," will be
completely destroyed in a great miraculous cataclysm of
wrath, out of which a few elect souls will be delivered
by an equally miraculous Rapture (i Thess. 4: 17). It
is not denied that many individuals find a real comfort
in these expectations, especially at times of world up
heaval such as the present. It is not denied that
the intense other-worldliness of these expectations fosters
at times a genuine piety, which is a rebuke to the secular
spirit of our average Christianity and worthy of admira
tion and emulation. Nevertheless the Millennial hope is
an anachronism in modern life, and like all anachronisms
its ultimate tendency is harmful and only harmful. It
rapidly degenerates into hysteria and morbidness, which
its adherents are apt to identify with supreme devotion,
but which are only manifestations of mental disease. It
cultivates an exclusiveness in religion that speedily tends
to become fanatical. It has no place for the great move
ments of social betterment which are so characteristic
of modern religion, because it believes these are unavail
ing. Its other-worldliness is anti-cultural. It refuses
to permit religion to conquer the world and appropriate
to itself the achievements of art and science. The beauty
and the joy of life are not things to be consecrated but
temptations to be shunned. In a word, it refuses to
believe in the highest spiritual and moral forces that
operate in the development of the race, and pins its faith
to miracle in the baldest and most unmoral form in which
miracle has ever been conceived — the miraculous counter
attack upon the spiritual achievements of the race. For
tunately the great body of opinion in the Christian
Church has always set itself against this unhealthy form
of the Christian religion. Thanks to Augustine, who

RECONSTRUCTION 205
wrote his great work when the initial attacks of the
Northern hordes upon the city of Rome seemed to the
civilization of that time to portend the end of the world,
the Church has chosen for its ideal and the goal of its
faith, not the reign of a thousand years, but the City of
God, a broad and beautiful city which shall gradually
enlarge its gracious borders till they are one with the
confines of the habitable earth. In the building of this
city man joyfully cooperates with God because he has
faith in its ultimate completion, a city purified of sin and
all injustice, a city crowned with the presence of the Lord,
a city called into being not by the magic rub of an
Aladdin's lamp, but by the moral efforts of the race, as
they are guided and inspired by the Spirit of God. In
this faith it is possible still to repeat with all sincerity,
though in a sense somewhat different from their original
meaning, those beautiful lines of the post-Reformation
hymn-writer, Isaac Watts :
Religion bears our spirits up,
While we expect that blessed hope,
The bright appearing of our Lord,
And Faith stands leaning on his Word.

INDEX

Abraham, lie of, 127, 140.
Accommodation, 153, 158, 161.
Allegory, and inspiration, 52, 67,
69 ; ethical and physical, 63 ;
examples of, among Greeks,
63 ff ; Origen's use of, 55 ;
Celsus' objection to, 67; in
New Testament, 68 f, 176 f ;
Gnostic use of, 76; rejected by
Marcion, 76; and authority of
Church, 116, 135; restriction
of, by Calvin, 147 ; by Glassius,
177; innata and illata, 178.
Allegorical Method of Interpre
tation, 51 ; reasons for, 52; pa
tristic adoption of, not ca
pricious, 56, 67 ; in New Testa
ment, 68 f, 195 ; in Alexandrine
Judaism, 58; among Greeks,
59 ff; the scientific method in
ancient times, 69; and uncer
tainty of Scripture, 75, 109;
and the dilemma of the Fa
thers, 79 f ; Clement and Ori
gen unconscious of its diffi
culties, 80; in Middle Ages,
112; rejected by Luther, 115 f ;
by Calvin, 134.
Analogy, prophetic, 161.
Antiquity, argument from, 8 f .
Apologetics, aims of, in Early
Church, 3 ff. ; in Reformation,
113 f, 162; and prophecy, 200.
Apologists, Greek, their views
of God, 6; of the ceremonial,
6; of origin of Christianity,
8ff; of Old Testament as

Christian, 10; of Moses as
older than Greek philosophers,
11; of Inspiration, 11; of sig
nificance of Jesus, 19; subor
dinate New Testament to Old
Testament, 21 ; comparison of,
with Calvin, 137 f.
Apostles and Tradition, 86, 91.
Apostles Creed, 87.
Apostolic Churches, the sources
of Tradition, 89.
Arians, and the creeds, 08.
Aristides, definition of God, 6.
Athenagorus, views of inspira
tion, 11; of Homer, 59.
Augustine, explanation of the
allegory, 53, 76; allegory of
anointing Christ's feet, 77; the
City of God, 205.
Authority, problem of, 113, 162;
see also Councils, Creeds,
Scripture, Tradition.
Barnabas, attitude of, toward
ceremonial, 7; Old Testa
ment Christian, 10.
Bellarmin, views of Tradition,
166 f.
Beza, views of N. T. Greek con
demned, 169.
Bible, see Scriptures.
Bishops, succession of, 92; the
interpreters of Scripture, 92 f ;
and the charism of truth, 95 ;
as priests, 96; of Rome, 97;
Constantine's view of, 97.
Buxtorf, theory of Canon, 170 f.

207

208

INDEX

Calvin, a scientific interpreter,
133; distinction between exe
gete and theologian, 133, 152,
160; theory of interpretation,
134; criticism of N. T. alle
gories, 134 f . ; unhistorical
theory of Old Testament, 136;
theory of the two Testaments,
136 ; view of Law, 144 f ;
typology of, 131 f, 146, 159;
restricts the allegory, 134;
views of predictive prophecy,
147, 154; of Evangelists' in
terpretation of Old Testament,
151 ff ; criticized by later theo
logians, 182; view of inspira
tion, 182; Calvinus Judaizans,
183.
Canon, question of, 84; and
apostolicity, 84; and church
authority, 93; term first ap
plied to Scripture, 87 ; post-
reformation theories of, 170
ff. ; modern view of, 188.
Canon, of Faith or Truth, and
the creed, 87, 90; the norm of
interpretation, 87, 91.
Carhzov, theory of Canon, 171.
Celsus, attitude toward moral
difficulties of Old Testament,
67.
Ceremonial, difficulties of, for
Christians, 6; subsumed under
prophecy, 7 ; in Barnabas, 7 ; in
Justin, 8; in Origen, 55; at
time of Reformation, 113;
criticized by Calvin, 137.
Ceremonialism, and universal
ism, incompatible, 9.
.Chemnitz, theory of Canon, 170.
Christianity, its late origin, 9;
older than Greek philosophy,
II; a philosophy based on
revelation, 11; merged into

prophetic religion, 20; Gnos
tic view of, 25'; hellenization
of, 39-
Cicero, and the Greek myths, 63.
Clement of Alexandria, and the
obscurity of Scripture, 73.
Constantine and the general
councils, 97.
Councils, Justinian's view of, 98 ;
and authority of Scripture, ib ;
authority of, rejected by Lu
ther, 115.
Creed, a law, 90; novelty of, as
written, 97; and Greek philos
ophy, 98; infallibility of, 98;
in Eastern Church, 97 f ; in
Western Church, 100; exege
sis subjected to, 172.
Cyprian, and church dogma, 96 f .
Decalogue, abrogation of, 129;
" appendages " to, 142.
Daniel, and dentistry, 193.
Delphic oracles, and Hebrew
prophecy, 73.
Demiurge, 24 f; Marcion's view
of, 26; Irenseus' view of, 34.
Demons, 21.
Dialogue with Trypho, aims of,
4ff.
Diodorus, and the incredibilities
of Homer, 62.

Elijah, and predictive prophecy,
193-
Enigma, of prophecy, 71 f , 191 ;
and the allegory, 75 ; and non-
moral view of prophecy, 192.
Episcopate, a channel of tradi
tion, 91; guarantees tradition,
92.
Euhemerus, theories of inter
pretation, 62.

INDEX

209

Evangelists, Scripture twisted
by, 151, 157, 161, 189.
Faber, Stapulensis, and the liter
al sense of Scripture, 112.
Fecundity or fertility, of Scrip
ture, 135, 179.
Filioque, 98.
Food-laws, Origen's views of,
56; Calvin's views of, 143.
Francke, views of Psalms, 174.
Gentile Christians, religious dif
ficulties of, 5.
Gerhard, theory of Scripture,
167; of interpretation, 172,
174; and Milleraravism, 174.
Gerson, and the sense of Scrip
ture, 112.
Glassius, theory of interpreta
tion, 176.
Gnosis, and the allegory, 74.
Gnosticism, dualism of, 23 ;
views of demiurge, 24; of
Jesus, 24; of Old Testament,
25; Jesus not the fulfiller of
O. T. prophecies, 26; empha
sizes moral difficulties of Old
Testament, 29 f ; historical
criticism of Old Testament,
38; attitude toward the alle
gory, 76.
Gnostics, differentiated from
Apologists, 21 f; interests of
23.
Gore, Bishop, and Tradition, 99.
Grammatico-historical sense, see
Reformation Principle.
Great Synagogue, 170.
Greeks, as myth-makers, 59; as
scientists, 60.
Greek philosophy, borrowed
from prophets, 11.
Gregory I, and the councils, 98.

Heraclides, and the immoralities
of Homer, 64.
Heraclitus, rationalizes Homer,
62.
Hilary, and the written creed, 97.
Hippolytus, views of Bishop, 96.
Historical sense of Old Testa
ment, lost by Gentile Chris
tians, 68.
Homer, the Greek Bible, 59; in
spiration of, 59; difficulties of,
for Greeks, 61.
Homerocentones, 79, 87.
Homoousios, 98.
Humanism, 118, 188.
Hunnius, criticism of Calvin,
183.
Ignatius, on Judaism and Christi
anity, 3 ff.
iva -ir\t]pu)0y, 154, 163, 189.
Indulgence controversy, signifi
cance of, 114.
Inspiration, views of, in Greek
Apologists, 1 1 ; and the alle
gory, see allegory; verbal dic
tation theory of, 166 f, 168;
controversies over, 186 f ; and
the predictive theory of pro
phecy, 190 ; psychologically-
unmediated view of, 191 ; mor
alized view of, 193 f .
Interpretation, Augustine's theo
ries of, 53 ; Justin's theories
of, 53 f ; Origen's theories of,
55; Rabbinic methods of, 57;
Alexandrine method of, 57;
Greek theories of, 62 f ; and
Tradition, 85; and the creed,
87 ; Vincentius' theory of, 104 ;
in Middle Ages, mf; Luth
er's theories of, 117, 119; Cal
vin's theories of, 134; post-
reformation theories of, 171 ff.

2IO

INDEX

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 27;
argument from prophecy, 28;
and moral difficulties of Old
Testament, 30; and the Law,
31 ; recapitulation theory, 31 ;
virgin birth, 35 f ; sign-theory
of prophecy, 41 ; and tradition,
86; and the episcopate, 92, 95.
Jacob's tricks, 56, 126 f , 140.
Jesus, Messiahship of, 14, 195;
birth of, 15 ; passion of, 17 ;
Second advent of, 18; signifi
cance of, in Apologists, 19; in
Gnosticism, 24; as fulfiller of
prophetic ideals, 197.
Jonah, use of New Testament,
69, 178, 198.
Justin Martyr, and the cere
monial, 8 ; and origin of Chris
tianity, 9; and Logos doc
trine, 9; the Old Testament
Christian, 10; and predictive
theory of prophecy, 12, 40, 41 ;
and person of Christ, 13 ; and
virgin birth, 15 ff ; and passion,
17; and second advent, 18;
and sign-theory of prophecy,
41 ; and interpretation of
Scripture, 53 ; and enigma
view of prophecy, 71 f.
Justinian, and the councils, 98.
Kosmos, new meaning of, 60.
Law, in Irenaeus, 31 f, 34 ; in
Origen, 55; and the oral tra
dition, 57; and Gospel, 122,
129, 138 ; in Luther, 128 f ; in
Calvin, 141.
Logos Doctrine, 9 ff.
Lot, daughters of, 30, 55 f ; 127.
Luther, rejects church author
ity, 114 f; accepts authority of

Scripture, 115; discards alle
gory, 115, 125; Preface of Isa
iah, 119; not a scientific in
terpreter, 120 ; christo-centric
theory of Scripture, 120 f ; in
terpretation of, differs from
that of Fathers, 122; and the
Patriarchs, 126 ff; and the
Law, 128 ff.
Marcion, separation of Law and
Gospel, 26; view of demiurge,
26; classed by Tertullian with
Jews, 29; rejects allegory, 76.
Messiah, question of, in Early
Church, 3 f ; distinction be
tween O. T. and N. T. Mes
siahs, 26; found in Psalms,
43, 122, 147, 174; question of,
in Reformation, 113, 117, 119;
proof of Jesus as, 195.
Millennialists, interpretation of
prophecy no, 174; hope of,
200 ; premises of, 201 ; criti
cism of, 203.
Miller, William, views of, 200.
Moral difficulties of Old Testa
ment, 29 f ; in Irenaeus, 30 ; in
Origen, 556; see also Luther
and Calvin.

New Testament, subordination
of, in Apologists, 21 f ; increas
ing importance of, in Irenaeus
and Tertullian, 33; the alle
gory in, 68, 112, 134 f, 195;
allegorized by Origen, 56; by
Gnostics, 76; coordinated with
Old Testament, 83 ; as norm of
interpretation of Old Testa
ment, 150, 158, 173, 185, 190;
and the argument from pro
phecy, 196.

INDEX

211

Old-catholic Fathers, argument
from prophecy in, 30 f .
Old Testament, a Christian book,
10, 121, 136; importance for
Christianity, 39; and Hellenic
thought, 57.
Origen, principles of interpre
tation, 55 ; three-fold sense of
Scripture, 55 ; objections of,
to Greek allegorizing, 67;
enigma view of prophecy, 73 ;
condemned by Luther, 117; by
Turrettin, 178.
Owen, John, view of inspiration,
168 f.
Passion of Christ, a sign, 18.
Patriarchs, unacquainted with
ceremonial, 9; polygamy of,
55, 140, 175; "befouled" by
Luther, 127; faith of, 127;
Calvin's views of, 139 f.
Paul, allegories in, 68 f , 135 ;
" embellishes " Moses, 158 ;
and modern view of prophecy,
194.
Pentateuch, Calvin's harmony
of, 142.
Philo, and the allegory, 58, 66.
Pope, 100, m; above Scripture,
117; opposed by infallible
Word, 167.
Praescriptions against Heretics,
89.
Priarias, and church authority,
in.
Prophecy, predictive theory of,
in Apologists, 12; in Justin,
41 ; in Irenaeus, 41 ; in Tertul
lian, 49; and the person of
Christ, 13 f ; and the second
advent, 19, 201 ; cancels signifi
cance of Christ's work, 20; in
the argument with Gnostics,

27; argument from, in Iren
aeus, 27 ; in Tertullian, 29 ; sign-
theory of, 37; importance of,
38, 70; nature of argument
from, 40 f; enigma theory of,
71; and fulfilment, 71, 172;
lessening significance of, in
Reformation, 113, 122, 160;
Calvin's views of, 147 ff ; and
Reformation Principle, 150;
break-down of, in Calvin, 154 ;
and infallibility of Bible, 184;
interests involved in, 189; and
inspiration, 190 f ; a philosophy
of history, 199; consummated
in Christianity, 200.
Protestanism, dilemma of, 185.
Ptolemaeus, Epistle of, 23.
Quadriga, 112, 116.
Quenstedt's theory of Scripture,
168; of interpretation, 172; ex
planation of, Hos. n : 1, 181.
Recapitulation theory, 16, 31.
Reformation principle of exe
gesis, 117; and authority of
Scripture, 118, 163; adopted in
dogmatic interest, 118, 188;
and Humanism, 118, 188; Lu
ther's definition of, 119;
changes attitude toward pro
phecy, 120, 188 f ; in Calvin,
135 ; and the New Testament
as the norm of interpretation,
150 f ; and Reformation doc
trine of Scripture, 164; aban
doned in post-reformation
period, 175, 184; and Protes
tant scholarship, 186 f.
Roman Symbol, 87, 88, 90, 94.
Sallust, and the judgment of
Paris, 64 f .

212

INDEX

Salvation, problem of, 113, 162.
Schoolmen, authority of, re
jected by Luther, 114.
Scripture, two-fold sense of, in
Theagnis, 63; in Glassius, 176;
three-fold sense of, in Origen,
55' ; obscurity of, 75 ; author
ity of, and creed, 88, 08; un
usable in debate, 89; theo
retical supremacy of, 90, 99,
in; literal and mystical senses
identified, 112, 180; four-fold
sense of, 112; authority of, ac
cepted by Luther, 115; perspi
cuity of, 1 15 ; or Tradition,
118; Christo-centric theory of,
120 f ; one sense of, and Luth
er, 117; interpreted by Church,
166 ; infallibility of, 167, 187 f ;
interpreted by itself, 171 ; com
posite sense of, 177; fecundity
of, 179; historical sense of,
180; historical or dogmatic
conception of, 187.
Second Coming, 18; two ad
vents distinguished, 18; and
predictive prophecy, 19, 43,
201.
Sense of Scripture, see Scrip
ture.
Sign-theory of prophecy, 37 and
predictive prophecy, 41 ; and
fatalism, 42.
Somation or little body of truth,
87, 98.
Song of Songs, 112.
Summaries, on importance of
argument from prophecy, 38 f ;
on dilemma of Fathers, 79 f ;
on Prophecy and Author
ity, 102 f ; of Luther's views,
130 f; of Calvin's views,
159 f; of Luther and Calvin,
162 f.

Supernatural, the, proof of, 198;
and the miraculous, 199.
Tabernacle, Clement's allegory
of, 74 ; Calvin's view of, 145 ;
Gerhard's allegory of, 175.
Tatian, date of Moses, n; pro
phecy as prediction, 12; ob
jection to Greek allegories, 67.
Tertullian, Against Marcion, 28;
argument from prophecy, 28 f ;
sign-theory of prophecy, 38,
41 ; fatalistic view of pro
phecy, 42; and N. T. allegoriz
ing, 68, 78; and enigma view
of prophecy, 72; difficulties of
allegory admitted by, 80; and
Tradition, 89; and the creed
as law, 90; and the episcopate,
92.
Text of Scripture, infallibility
of, 169 ff; corruption of, 187.
Theagnis of Rhegium, 63.
Theophilus of Antioch, and
prediction, 12.
Thesis controversy, significance
of, 115.
Tradition, 81; forms of, 82; the
New Testament a part of, 83;
in the debate with heretics, 84 ;
as a principle of interpretation,
85, 88; in Irenaeus, 86; and
canon of Faith, 87; and au
thority of Scripture, 88 f; in
Tertullian, 89; and the episco
pate, 91 ; manufactured by
Church, 95, 99, in; and dog
ma, 95; superior to Scripture,
99; and the Jewish paradosis,
99; and the Pope, 100; Council
of Trent on, 165.
Trent, Council of, 166.
Turrettin, allegory in, 178 ; sense
of Scripture, 180.

INDEX

213

Types, 48 f, 138; not explained
in Old Testament, 146, 192;
recognized by Calvin, 142, 145,
157 ; distinguished from pre
diction, 153, 161 ; and the sin
gle sense of Scripture. 179.
Typology, distinguished from al
legory, 138; Hebrews instruct
ed in, 146; substituted for pre
diction, 157 ; Calvin's interest
in, 159; in post-reformation
period, 175.

Virgin Birth, in Justin, 15 ; Try
pho's objections to, 16; a sign,
16, 42; independent signifi
cance of, 35.
Valentinus, and the allegory, 78.
Vincentius of Lirinum, 104.
Witsius, 173.
Watts, Isaac, 205.
Xenophanes, views of Homer,
62.

Unity of
136.

the two Testaments,

Zeltner, and the polygamy of the
Patriarchs, 175.

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
Gen. 2:5, p. 36; 3:15, p. 122, 148; 40:9, p. 79; 45:3, p. 71;
149; Chap. 12, p. 127, 140; 50:3, p. 47; Chap. 53, p. 17;
Chap. 14, p. 177; 22: 18, p. 53=4, P- 157; 53:8, p. 44; 63:1,
123; Chap. 26, p. 140; Chap. pp. 47, 150; 65:2, p. 46.
27, p. 127; Chap. 30, pp. 128, Jer. 11, 19, p. 47; 23:20, p. 72;
141 ; 49:10 f, pp. 41, 44, 48, 71, 31 :i5, p. 153.
149- Dan. 2 :34, p. 45 ; 12 -.4, 7, p. 72.
Ex. 17:16, p. 49. Hosea, 5:15-6, 2, pp. 47, 150;
Lev., Chap. 11, p. 143; Chaps. 11 :i, pp. 153, 181.
13, 14, p. 144 ; Chap. 16, pp. 49, Amos, 2 :6, p. 42 ; 8 :g, p. 47.
53, 144- Jonah, 2:1, p. 178.
Num. 13 : 16, p. 54 ; Chap. 19, p. Micah, 5 :2, p. 154.
145 ; Chap. 21, p. 176. Zech. 9 :9, pp. 41, 198.
Deut. Chap. 14, p. 143; 21:23, p. Mt., 2:6, p. 154; 2:15, p. 153;
18; 30: 12, p. 158; 33: 13-17, P- 2:18, p. 153; 5:17, p. 39; 8:17,
46. p. 157; 12:40, p. 178; 21:1-7,
Psalms, 1, p. 47; 2, p. 48; 3:4, p. p. 198; 23:23, 27, p. 54.
179; 3:5, P- 48; 8:5, p. 157; Ps. Luke, 10:21, p. 72.
22, pp. 17, 38, 44, 46, 79, 116; John, 3:i4f, p. 176.
Ps. 24, pp. 44, 48; 40:6-9, p. I Cor., 2:9, p. 152; 9=9, PP- 68,
157; 4i:9, P- 42; 68:18, p. 158; 135; 10:1-13, pp. 32, 135, 146;
Ps. 72, pp. 44, 48, 55 ; Ps. 96, p. 12 :28, p. 93 ; 13 :i2, p. 71.
44; Ps. no, pp. 44, 48. Gal. 4:21-26, pp. 68, 134.
Isa. 3:10, p. 149; 4:2, p. 149; 7:9, Eph. 4:8, p. 158.
P- 73; 7:i4, P- 45, 72, 151; 8:4, I Thess. 4:17, p. 204.
PP. 45, 149; 8:11, p. 192; 8:18, Heb. 2:3, 7, p. 157; Chap. 7, p.
p. 157; 9:1-7, p. 148; 28:16, p. 177; 10:5, p. 157.
152; 29:13, P- 47; Chap. 40, p.

PRINTED IN THE HNITBD STATlg OF AMERICA
214

""HE following pages contain advertisements of a few
of the Macmillan books on kindred subjects

Christian Internationalism
By WILLIAM PIERSON MERRILL
Cloth, 12°, $1.50
"An army pushing its victorious advance finds one
stubborn stronghold which resists; and it realizes that it
must capture that one center of resistance or its advance
is imperilled. So Christianity, advancing to the control
of the world's life, halts before this great citadel of Inter
national Relationships where pagan forces are still
strongly intenched ; and it realizes that the whole program
and hope of Christian Redemption are held back,
thwarted, imperilled, until that fortress is reduced."
Christian Internationalism lays siege to this fortress
and marshals in force manifold considerations, political,
social and religious, in support of the case for an imme
diate end of the old arbitrary conduct of nations toward
each other and a beginning of a new era of peaceful, or
dered freedom.
CHAPTER HEADINGS
CHAPTER I. The Function of Christianity in the World.
II. The Old Testament and Internationalism.
III. The New Testament and Internationalism.
IV. Christianity and Internationalism.
V. Democracy and Internationalism.
VI. America and Internationalism.
VII. Constructive Proposals for an Iniernational Order.
VIII. Problems Confronting Internationalism.
IX. Christian Principles Underlying Internationalism.
X. The War and Internationalism.
XI. The Church and Internationalism.
XII. Conclusions.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 04-£6 Fifth Avenue New york

The History of Religions
By E. WASHBURN HOPKINS
Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology,
Yale University Cloth, 8", $3.00
It has been the author's aim in this work to present
an accurate and sufficiently detailed history of religions
in one volume. Up to the present time histories of re
ligions have either been too diffuse or they have included
only the advanced religions, with perhaps a few words
as to primitive beliefs. Not only is the general founda
tion of religion slighted by this method but the inter
mediate forms, which connect the lower and higher re
ligions, are ignored. The author has endeavored to take
a wider view. He has accordingly begun with the lowest
forms of religion and advancing from these, the religions
of savages and barbarians, examined those of higher but
still comparatively naive character, such as the early re
ligions of Europe, the Orient, and America, after which
he has given a particular exposition of the next higher
and finally of the most intellectual and spiritual religions ;
Brahmanism, Buddhism, and Christianity thus taking
their proper place after those religions in which the
ideals of the greatest religions appear in embryonic form,
such as Zoroastrianism, the religion of Greece, of Baby
lon, and of Egypt.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-68 Fifth Avenue New York

The Course of Christian History
By W. J. McGLOTHLIN, Ph.D., D.D.
Professor of Church History in the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary. Cloth, $2.oo
This volume has been written with a full and accurate knowl
edge of the subject gained from study in European Universities
and teaching in one of the leading theological institutions of this
country. While it is thoroughly scientific in spirit and is abreast of the
latest developments, the author has at the same time preserved
that lucidity and simplicity of statement and style which make
the book interesting and readable for the general student.
"The study of the course that has been taken by the Church
in its extended life is most interesting and fascinating, when
guided by one who is able to speak as a real master. . . . The
growth and development of the church from its early days, on
through the middle centuries and into modern times, is por
trayed in a skillful and authoritative way, and much light is
shed on the great controversies and councils, in the develop
ment of doctrines, the spread of heresies and the expansion of
the life and work of the church." — Herald and Presbyter.
" The volume is different from the general run of church his
tories. ... It is readable, interesting and informing. The book
is intended primarily for college students and is well adapted
to this use. . . . The book is also well adapted to the use of
Bible classes, mission study classes, etc., and could be used by
them to great profit. . . . Dr. McGlothlin has done a splendid
piece of work in this volume and made a real contribution to
the literature on the history of Christianity. We wish for this
book a wide reading." — Review and Expositor.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue Hew York

RELIGIOUS HAND BOOKS
Each Sixty Cents
DEMOCRATIC CHRISTIANITY: SOME PROBLEMS
OF THE CHURCH IN THE DAYS JUST AHEAD
By FRANCIS J. McCONNELL
" We have in mind the tasks of to-day as they confront the Christian
Church," writes Bishop McConnell.
GOD'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAR
By EDWARD S. DROWN
Dr. Drown discusses this very interesting question in terse and vigorous
prose.
THE TWENTIETH CENTURY CRUSADE By LYMAN ABBOTT
Written by one who has an exultant faith that never in the history of the
past has there been so splendid a demonstration of the extent and power of
the Christ spirit as to-day.
THE WAY TO LIFE by henry churchill king
A discussion of the Sermon on the Mount, similar to that in Dr. King's
former book The Ethics of Jesus. Besides rewriting them, he has added
materia] on the war and the teachings of Jesus.
IT'S ALL IN THE DAY'S WORK
„ _ . . . By HENRY CHURCHILL KING
Good bracing council ... a book for all who wish to acquit themselves
well in tho battle of life."— The Dial.
THE BEST MAN I KNOW By William DeWitt hyde
*' All the virtues and the graces that make for fine quality of life are
included. They are presented with a vigor that is like the sting of salt
winds, bracing and wholesome." — Christian Register.
THE CHURCH AND THE MAN By donald hankey
" Filled with the wise sincerity of a religious conviction that cares little
for creed and miracle, that finds the whole vade mecum of life in the simple
facta of Christ's active work among men."' — Boston Transcript.
THE CHRISTIAN MAN, THE CHURCH AND THE WAR
By ROBERT E. SPEER
Dr. Speer here discusses the essentials of a problem which has exercised
Christian men since the beginning of the war. He deals with it sanely and
in a manner that will be considered distinctly helpful.
NEW HORIZON OF STATE AND CHURCH By W. H. P. FAUNCE
" Broad, profound scholarship, close relationship with progressive senti
ment all over the land, and unusual powers of keen analysis and graphic
statement are forceful elements in The New Horizon of State and Church.
— ¦ Philadelphia North American.
THE WAR AND THE BIBLE by h. d. enelow
Contents: — The Spiritual Problems of the War; The Attitude of the
Bible Toward War; The Ethics of War in the Bible; Some Great Wars of
the Bible; Heroes of War in the Bible; The War Poetry of the Bible; War
Prayers in the Bible; Parallels to the Present War in the Bible; The Ideal
of Peace in the Bible.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York

3 9002 00505 4797