here predicted, the prophecy was proved to be indeed from God, and no doubt could remain as to the fulfilment of the rest.

As represented by the prophet, it was a contest between Jehovah and the gods of Babylon, just as the miracles of the days of Moses were the signs of the contest between Jehovah and the gods of Egypt. The absolute superiority of Jehovah was to be demonstrated in the one case on the score of His omniscience, as in the other on the score of His omnipotence. The prophet's announcements are made before there were any external indications of their occurrence.

In xliii. 9-12 the prophet reverts to the same theme. He sends out once more his universal challenge to all nations. "Who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified. Ye are My witnesses, saith Jehovah. I have declared, and I have saved, and I have shewed, and there was no strange god among you. Therefore, ye are My witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God." The people knew and could testify that these predictions had been uttered under circumstances which put their Divinity beyond question.

In xlv. 3, 4, stress is laid upon the fact that he called Cyrus by his name. What was there remarkable in Cyrus being called by his name? Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh-hophra are called by their names in prophecies by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But if Cyrus was yet unheard of and unborn, it was indeed a signal instance of prediction. Similar passages to those already cited are found in xlv. 21; xlvi. 9-11; xlviii. 5-7, 16, all dwelling upon the proof furnished by these remarkable predictions that Jehovah alone is God.

6. The critical inference that the chapters now under consideration belong to the period of the Exile labours under an additional difficulty. It is chargeable with the mistake of confusing the ideal with the actual present. The prophets not infrequently transport themselves into the midst of the scenes which they are describing, and speak of the future as though it were present or even past. Thus, in the burden upon Tyre, in chap. xxiii., the prophet speaks throughout as though Tyre had already been taken, and he looks forward from this ideal position over the seventy years of depression and subsequent revival that are to follow. Commonly, such passages are brief, and the prophet soon returns again to his true position. The only thing peculiar about the chapters now under consideration is that the prophet maintains his ideal position in the Exile through such long, continuous passages as he does. But there is in chap. xxiv.-xxvii. a similar example, in which the ideal position of the prophet differs from the actual throughout.

In the chapters before us the prophet does not maintain the same ideal position without change. Commonly, he speaks as if from the midst of calamity and suffering, and looks forward to the fall of Babylon and the deliverance of the exiles. But sometimes he speaks as though Babylon had already fallen and the period of full deliverance had already come. Thus, at the very outset (xl. 2): "Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare is accomplished; that her iniquity is pardoned; that she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." So, in xlvi. 1, 2, the gods of Babylon are spoken of as already captured and laden as beasts of burden for transportation at the will of the conqueror. And, li. 3: 66 Jehovah hath comforted Zion; He hath comforted all her waste places, and hath made her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of Jehovah." In chap. liii. he takes his position between the humiliation and the glory of the Messiah; the former is described as past; the latter as future. And we have already seen that in other passages his true historical position betrays itself in his language.

The prophet might very well take for granted the existence of the Exile, which he had previously predicted, and which his contemporary, (Micah iv. 10) had predicted likewise. And it would be contrary to the analogy of all his previous predictions if he had announced so great a calamity as the coming Exile and foretold no deliverance from it.

It is, of course, impossible to treat exhaustively so large a subject as the genuineness of chaps. xl.-lxvi. in the compass of a single article. We have not aimed to present it in all its aspects, nor to adduce all the arguments which can be urged. We have confined our remarks to the chief critical objection, to which all others are subordinate, viz., that these chapters throughout make the impression that they were written in the Exile.

CURRENT

GERMAN

THOUGHT.

A GERMAN CRITIC ON DR. CHEYNE'S BAMPTON LECTURE. Dr. E. KAUTZSCH (Theol. Stüd. u. Krit., 1892, Third Part).—Professor Kautzsch, who is an eminent Hebraist, occupies much the same critical position as Dr. Cheyne, and has passed through a similar development. For this reason some parts of his criticism are all the more significant. After mentioning the fame which the English professor enjoys in Germany, Dr. Kautzsch emphasizes two favourable points in his works: first, that he limits his studies to what is important and essential, not losing himself in endless details, as too many German writers do; and secondly, his positive theological beliefs, which greatly increase his influence. He then gives a very clear and succinct account, both of the preface and the several lectures. As is well known, Cheyne confidently assigns nearly all the psalms of the third and fourth books to the Maccabean period. As to the thirteen under the heading "David," the title was merely meant to give a certain Davidic flavour to the last book, or, laying aside figure, to stamp it with the character of the two earlier books. The majority of the psalms in the second and third books are pre-Maccabean, others, however, still belonging to Maccabean times. Even the first book contains some Maccabean psalms. All that the author will concede is the existence of Davidic or Solomonic elements, though disguised and combined with others. Perhaps a Davidic element exists in Ps. xviii. and lx." "Possibly the composition of psalms was influenced by another great poet, some time after David." "Ps. ii. formed probably the preface to the Davidic Psalter,' and arises from the pre-Maccabean Greek age; Ps. i., on the other hand, was, perhaps, the introduction to a larger pre-Maccabean Psalm-book, which embodied in itself the former smaller one." Dr. Kautzsch then outlines the author's views of the "personification-theory," and the theology of the Psalter. After unqualified commendation and unstinted praise, the critic makes it very clear that he cannot go the extreme length of Dr. Cheyne's conclusions. We will translate his words.

66

"Despite all this, an important question remains, to which greater interest attaches than seems to have been recently conceded to it. Has Cheyne succeeded in proving that with, perhaps, the exception of single phrases and sentences and of Ps. xviii. (which with great reserve is put in Josiah's days)—all the psalms were not merely brought together in collections, but also composed first in post-Exilic days, and, if we rightly understand Cheyne, almost without exception for purposes of worship? That in fitting particular psalms into the Church's psalter the editor's

This is a

harmonizing hand made many changes, we have readily conceded. supposition rendered only too intelligible to us by a glance at our own hymn-books. Moreover, cases like Ps. liii., compared with Ps. xiv., sufficiently show with what freedom the text must have been handled in certain periods. But, despite all this, we are unable to escape the impression that no editorial activity has been able to efface a certain arugo vetustatis in a series of psalms. The fact has been appealed to that in all ages liturgies have employed a classical language. But if the entire literature in question is really post-Exilic, where are the models to be found which were imitated ? In the prophetic writings? Or in a literature of a similar kind that has perished? That Cheyne himself does not regard this question as futile, as many do, his remarks on p. 194 show. He does not absolutely reject the possibility that the influence of David, or, perhaps more correctly, of another great poet after David, made itself felt in the composition of the psalms. We ask, which is more natural, to appeal for the solution of the question to a mystic x assumed ad hoc, or simply to see in a portion of the psalms preserved to us (although more or less modified) the model of the post-Exilic compositions?

"Another question to which we do not find a satisfactory answer in Cheyne is this, How do the Psalms, which are outspokenly opposed to sacrifice, harmonize with the rounded whole which the post-Exilic liturgy presents to us, according to Cheyne? Do we receive the answer (quite correct in itself) that even after the Exile a prophetic or spiritualistic movement, averse to all outward ritual, went alongside the priestly movement? How is it conceivable that the products of the former were received into the Psalter of the second temple if they were known to be products of contemporaries, results of a movement hostile to sacrifice? To me, only one answer seems possible, they were accepted because they had already received, from older tradition, a sort of canonical reputation.

66

And, if all this were of no importance, there remain still three witnesses whose protest has not been shaken for me by Cheyne's explanations; I mean Psalms xx., xxi., xlv. The first two Cheyne refers, like Ps. cx., chiefly on the ground of a comparison with 1 Macc. xiii. 42 ff., to the Maccabean Simon. But whereas he has made this interpretation of Ps. cx. highly probable, I am not able to assert this of Psalms xx. and xxi. The simple and, so to speak, self-evident application of the kingly title in xx. 10, as well as in xxi. 2, 8, is unnatural and incomprehensible unless an actual king is meant. And, as concerns Ps. xlv., all Cheyne's reasons (in some respects most attractive) have not for us solved the one difficulty, that an Israelitish singer is made to speak before Ptolemy Philadelphus of Jehovah as his God. But if the three psalms mentioned (as certainly, e.g., also 1 Sam. ii. 1 ff., because of ver. 10) are proved pre-Exilic, thereby a strong assumption is created that many other preExilic products of psalm-composition-and that at a part of one or several older collections have been preserved and finally rescued in our Psalter."

Dr. Kautzsch is fettered by no prepossessions; he follows wherever his conclusions as an approved scholar point; but he is evidently not prepared for the drastic theories of Dr. Cheyne.

THE GROUND OF CHRISTIAN CERTAINTY: DR. HAUPT CRITICIZED.-Dr. Haupt's peculiar views on this point, set forth at length in his pamphlet, The Import of Holy Scripture for Evangelical Christians, have been already referred to in this column. Dr. H. Schmidt, of Breslau, challenges them in the Theol. Literaturblatt, April 1, 1892, and Prof. Th. Meinhold in the Beweis d. Glaubens for April. Dr. Haupt's position is that a Christian's personal experience is the sole immovable ground of faith in Scripture; in other words, not that Scripture is the guarantee for

such experience, but that such experience is the guarantee for Scripture. Thus, he thinks, he puts the absolute authority of Scripture on ground above the assaults of scepticism. Dr. Schmidt thus defines Haupt's position: "He starts from the principle that for evangelical Christians there can only be an inward, self-evident authority; that faith as a Divine act in man cannot depend on any sort of historical considerations": he teaches, in short, that we only come to know Scripture as Divine from its enlightening, saving effects on us; and only know it in this character in so far as it has such effects. It follows that at first our faith only refers to certain parts of Scripture, and gradually extends to the rest. "The authority of Scripture, therefore, can only be acknowledged to the extent that it unfolds its religious significance to individuals." Both the critics note the affinity with one part of Ritschl's doctrine, little as Haupt has in common with that doctrine as a whole. Protestantism has always made the witness of the Holy Spirit to the individual the crowning evidence, but to make it the sole and exclusive evidence is going very far indeed. To put merely one difficulty, How can faith arise in the first instance, save on the ground of the historical truthfulness of Scripture? By the way in which Haupt explains the origin of faith-namely, by the image of the earthly Christ, apart from cross and resurrection-Schmidt is again reminded of Ritschl and his school.

We quote some sentences from Dr. Schmidt's criticism: "Faith believes only what it has experienced.' Of an authority of Scripture going beyond this there is no question. Whether God speaks by an apostle or a forger is quite indifferent to such faith; whether the history related is true or not, faith enjoys its religious worth. God 'talks' in this way with it. I confess that I always feel deeply humbled when I read such descriptions of faith, for such experiences' are too extraordinary for me, and usually I have reason, with the poor father, to pray, 'Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!'" "No doubt faith must be a Divine effect. But is it only this? Is it always complete at first, like Athene springing from the head of Zeus? Is not this Divine act conditioned by psychological states of various kinds? If it is at last a Divine act by which the decision comes about, by which the emotion arises, which works first repentance, and then faith, through the preaching of cross and resurrection, this decision does not preclude a series of human considerations and motives; and as concerns the further course of faith, I have only too often found confirmed what I learned as a boy from Brentz's Catechism: Faith is now great and strong, full of confidence and gladness, now small and weak, much doubt, and fear, and distrust creeping in.' When such doubt attacks me, when some would rob me of the Christmas story and the accounts of the bodily resurrection, I cannot be as indifferent as Haupt; and that my God may speak to me as well by forgers as by apostles is to me too hard a saying, even if it can shelter itself behind an occasional paradox of Luther. According to the experience of all saints, faith needs outward support in the hour of temptation. 'I will trust, apart from feeling.' Just as certainly as I cannot be content with the authority of mere human conviction, which I blindly accept, so the object of my faith cannot be merely my own experience,' but just that which I have not yet experienced, which is still matter of promise, and for which I need a guarantee."

Towards the close of the pamphlet Haupt speaks as if his meaning were merely that the origin of faith does not always depend on the acknowledgment of the historical fact, though, of course, this is always implied in faith. There can be no objection to such a position. Faith and the origin of faith are different questions. Haupt seems all along to be speaking of the former. "That faith may arise on a variety of outward occasions, no one disputes.

The question, what amount

of material in regard to faith is enough for salvation in God's sight, we may leave to God. There are invalids, who continue to live under conditions which, according to medical opinion, really make life impossible. But when describing the normal conditions of life, we do not start from those which, nevertheless, support life in abnormal states."

Professor Th. Meinhold deals with the matter from a practical standpoint. Dr. Haupt uses the following illustration: "A general gives an address which fires his soldiers with the greatest enthusiasm. But not only do the words spoken exercise influence on those present, but those born afterwards may be drawn into the circle. Why? Because the personality of the speaker has, so to speak, become embodied in the words." The critic says, "The example chosen makes less for Dr. Haupt's case than ours. What if historic science taught me that the general never so spoke, perhaps never existed? Would not the idea of his speaking be an illusion that would scarcely last during the reading? Now, to apply this to the question in hand, if the discourses in John were not His, but the discourses of the evangelist who lived at some time unknown, and science had convinced me of this, could I really cherish the illusion that Jesus so spoke, and not some author under Greek, Gnostic, Alexandrian influences, longer than the moment of reading? This would the less be the case as the conviction of the spuriousness of the Gospel is supported in the case of those who hold it by internal reasons. The text itself is said to prove that, not Christ, but a later author speaks. It is, therefore, clear that the question of origin is of the greatest importance in relation to the Scripture which brings me salvation. It is by no means indifferent whether the Lord's saying, 'Ye also shall bear witness, for ye have been with Me from the beginning,' is truth, or-shall we say ?-poetic licence. . . . . Haupt himself maintains with all the certainty of personal conviction the historical character of Christ's resurrection, and the reality of His miracles. But still he says, 'Even if some one rob me of the Christmas story, and make me doubt the physical resurrection, it ought not to alarm me.' He supposes a labourer who has come to doubt whether Jesus ever lived. Certainly, even at the standpoint of science, this would be very foolish. But let any one attempt to convince such a man unversed in science of the wrongness of his prejudices.' So, he thinks, his conversion is impossible, and yet it must be attempted. We reply, let any one attempt to bring a man who has such doubts of the person of Jesus to believe for salvation in that person! Experience would show the folly of such an effort; the cherishing of such an illusion even by a student at his desk is quite incomprehensible. It is certainly true, as Haupt says, that a man may be awakened by a Divine act alone, in which case doubts vanish. But if I am to be an instrument, I can only be so by witnessing to the historical Christ as my Saviour."

Dr. Haupt deals with the authoritative aspect of Scripture in the same way, basing it on the fact that it has attested itself a true guide in the experience of the Church. Scripture is to be a standard of doctrine, not because it is the work of Apostles, but because it has proved itself a standard. The Church has always proceeded on a different principle. Its effort has ever been to prove its position and teaching Apostolic. And what of the first Christians? They must have rested on external evidence. We are told, in reply, that this was permitted in condescension to their weakness. "In other words, the poor primitive Christians needed such supports for their faith. We, enlightened people, can dispense with them."

THE PRESENT STATE OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN GREAT BRITAIN. By DR. CARL CLEMEN (Theol. Stüd. u. Krit, 1892, Third Part).-Dr. Clemen's article is the first part of an essay dealing in a very minute and comprehensive way with