iii，p。98。ForErasmusandhisopponents，seeLifeofErasmus，byButler，London，1825，pp。179-182；butespecially，forthegeneralsubject，BishopCreighton’sHistoryofthePapacyduringtheReformation。FortheattackbyBudeandtheSorbonneandtheburningofBerquin，seeDrummond，LifeandcharacterofErasmus，vol。ii，pp。220-223；alsopp。230-239。AstothetextoftheThreeWitnesses，seeGibbon，DeclineandFalloftheRomanEmpire，chap。xxxvi，notes116-118；alsoDeanMilman’snotethereupon。Forafullandlearnedstatementoftheevidenceagainsttheverse，seePorson’sLetterstoTravis，London，1790，inwhichanelaboratediscussionofalltheMSS。isgiven。SeealsoJowettinEssaysandReviews，p。307。Foraveryfullandimpartialhistoryofthelongcontroversyoverthispassage，seeCharlesButler’sHoraeBiblicae，reprintedinJaredSparks’sTheologicalEssaysandTracts，vol。ii。ForLuther’sideasofinterpretation，seehisSammtlicheSchriften，Walchedition，vol。
　　i，p。1199，vol。ii，p。1758，vol。viii，p。2140；forsomeofhismorefreeviews，vol。xiv，p。472，vol。vi，p。121，vol。xi，p。
　　1448，vol。xii，p。830；alsoTholuck，DoctrineofInspiration，Boston，1867，citingtheColloquia，Frankfort，1571，vol。ii，p。
　　102；alsotheVorredenzuderdeutschenBibelubersetzung，inWalch’sedition，asabove，vol。xiv，especiallypp。94，98，and146-150。AstoMelanchthon，seeespeciallyhisLociCommunes，1521；andastotheenormousgrowthofcommentariesinthegenerationsimmediatelyfollowing，seeCharlesBeard，HibbertLecturesfor1883，ontheReformation，especiallytheadmirablechapteronProtestantScholasticism；alsoArchdeaconFarrar，historyofInterpretation。ForthePapstesel，etc。，seeLuther’sSammtlicheSchriften，edit。Walch，vol。xiv，pp。2403etseq。；
　　alsoMelanchthon’sOpera，edit。Bretschneider，vol。xx，pp。665
　　etseq。IntheWhiteLibraryofCornellUniversitywillbefoundanoriginaleditionofthebook，withengravingsofthemonster。
　　FortheMonchkalb，seeLuther’sworksasabove，vol。xix，pp。
　　2416etseq。ForthespiritofCalvinininterpretation，seeFarrar，ansespeciallyH。P。Smith，D。D。，InspirationandInerrancy，chap。iv，andtheverybrilliantessayformingchap。
　　iiiofthesamework，byL。J。Evans，pp。66and67，note。FortheattitudeoftheolderChurchtowardtheVulgate，seePallavicini，HistoireduConciledeTrente，Montrouge，1844，tomei，pp19，20；butespeciallySymonds，TheCatholicReaction，vol。
　　i，pp。226etseq。AstoademandfortherevisionoftheHebrewBibletocorrectitsdifferencesfromtheVulgate，seeEmanuelDeutsch’sLiteraryRemains，NewYork，1874，p。9。FortheworkandspiritofCaloviusandothercommentatorsimmediatelyfolloeingtheReformation，seeFarrar，asabove；alsoBeard，Schaff，andHertzog，GeschichtedesaltenTestamentsinderchristlichenKirche，pp。527etseq。AstoextremeviewsofVoetiusandothers，seeTholuck，asabove。FortheFormulaConcensusHelvetica，whichin1675affirmedtheinspirationofthevowelpoints，seeSchaff，Creeds。
　　NorwasafanaticaladhesiontothemereletterofthesacredtextconfinedtowesternEurope。Aboutthemiddleoftheseventeenthcentury，inthereignofAlexis，fatherofPetertheGreat，Nikon，PatriarchoftheRussianGreekChurch，attemptedtocorrecttheSlavonicScripturesandservice-books。Theywerefullofinterpolationsduetoignorance，carelessness，orzeal，andinordertoremedythisstateofthetextsNikonprocuredanumberofthebestGreekandSlavonicmanuscripts，settheleadingandmostdevoutscholarshecouldfindatworkuponthem，andcausedRussianChurchcouncilsin1655and1666topromulgatethebooksthuscorrected。
　　Butthesamefeelingswhichhavewroughtsostronglyagainstournineteenth-centuryrevisionoftheBibleactedevenmoreforciblyagainstthatrevisionintheseventeenthcentury。Straightwaygreatmassesofthepeople，ledbymonksandparishpriests，roseinrevolt。ThefactthattherevisershadwrittenintheNewTestamentthenameofJesuscorrectly，insteadoffollowingtheoldwrongorthography，arousedthewildestfanaticism。ThemonksofthegreatconventofSolovetsk，whenthenewbooksweresentthem，criedinterror：“Woe，woe！whathaveyoudonewiththeSonofGod？”Theythenshuttheirgates，defyingpatriarch，council，andCzar，until，afterastrugglelastingsevenyears，theirmonasterywasbesiegedandtakenbyanimperialarmy。
　　Hencearosethegreatsectofthe“OldBelievers。”lastingtothisday，andfanaticallydevotedtothecorruptreadingsoftheoldtext。[470]
　　[470]Thepresentwriter，visitingMoscowinthespringof1894，waspresentedbyCountLeoTolstoitooneofthemosteminentandinfluentialmembersofthesectof“OldBelievers。”whichdatesfromthereformofNikon。Nothingcouldexceedthefervorwithwhichthisvenerableman，standinginthechapelofhissuperbvilla，expatiatedonthehorrorsofmakingthesignofthecrosswiththreefingersinsteadoftwo。HisargumentwasthattheTWO
　　fingers，asusedbythe“OldBelievers。”typifythedivineandhumannatureofourLord，andhencethattheuseofthemisstrictlycorrect；whereassigningwithTHREEfingers，representingtheblessedTrinity，is“virtuallytocrucifyallthreepersonsoftheGodheadafresh。”NotlesscogentwerehisargumentsregardingtheimmensevalueoftheoldtextofScriptureascomparedwiththenew。FortherevoltagainstNikonandhisreforms，seeRambaud，HistoryofRussia，vol。i，pp。414-
　　416；alsoWallace，Russia，vol。ii，pp。307-309；alsoLeroy-
　　Beaulieu，L’EmpiredesTsars，vol。iii，livreiii。
　　Strangetosay，onthedevelopmentofScriptureinterpretation，largelyinaccordancewiththeoldmethods，wrought，aboutthebeginningoftheeighteenthcentury，SirIsaacNewton。
　　ItishardtobelievethatfromthemindwhichproducedthePrincipia，andwhichbrokethroughthemanytime-honouredbeliefsregardingthedatesandformationofscripturalbooks，couldhavecomehisdiscussionsregardingtheprophecies；still，atvariouspointseveninthiswork，hispowerappears。FrominternalevidencehenotonlydiscardedthetextoftheThreeWitnesses，buthedecidedthatthePentateuchmusthavebeenmadeupfromseveralbooks；thatGenesiswasnotwrittenuntilthereignofSaul；thatthebooksofKingsandChronicleswereprobablycollectedbyEzra；and，inacuriousanticipationofmoderncriticism，thatthebookofPsalmsandthepropheciesofIsaiahandDanielwereeachwrittenbyvariousauthorsatvariousdates。Buttheoldbeliefinprophecyaspredictionwastoostrongforhim，andwefindhimapplyinghisgreatpowerstotherelationofthedetailsgivenbytheprophetsandintheApocalypsetothehistoryofmankindsinceunrolled，andtracingfromeverystatementinpropheticliteratureitsexactfulfilmenteveninthemostminuteparticulars。
　　Bythebeginningoftheeighteenthcenturythestructureofscripturalinterpretationhadbecomeenormous。ItseemeddestinedtohideforevertherealcharacterofoursacredliteratureandtoobscurethegreatlightwhichChristianityhadbroughtintotheworld。TheChurch，EasternandWestern，CatholicandProtestant，wascontenttositinitsshadow，andthegreatdivinesofallbranchesoftheChurchrearedeverysortoffantasticbuttresstostrengthenoradornit。Itseemedtobefoundedforeternity；andyet，atthisverytimewhenitappearedthestrongest，acurrentofthoughtwasrapidlydissolvingawayitsfoundations，andpreparingthatwreckandruinofthewholefabricwhichisnow，atthecloseofthenineteenthcentury，goingonsorapidly。
　　Theaccountofthemovementthusbegunisnexttobegiven。[471]
　　[471]ForNewton’sboldnessintextualcriticism，comparedwithhiscredulityastotheliteralfulfilmentofprophecy，seehisObservationsupontheProphesiesofDanielandtheApocalypseofSt。John，inhisworks，editedbyHorsley，London，1785，vol。v，pp。297-491。
　　II。BEGINNINGSOFSCIENTIFICINTERPRETATION。
　　AtthebaseofthevaststructureoftheolderscripturalinterpretationwerecertainideasregardingthefirstfivebooksoftheOldTestament。ItwastakenforgrantedthattheyhadbeendictatedbytheAlmightytoMosesaboutfifteenhundredyearsbeforeourera；thatsomepartsofthem，indeed，hadbeenwrittenbythecorporealfingerofJehovah，andthatallpartsgavenotmerelyhisthoughtsbuthisexactphraseology。Itwasalsoheld，virtuallybytheuniversalChurch，thatwhileeverynarrativeorstatementinthesebooksisaprecisestatementofhistoricalorscientificfact，yetthattheentiretextcontainsvasthiddenmeanings。Suchwastherule：theexceptionsmadebyafewinterpretershereandthereonlyconfirmedit。EventheindifferenceofSt。JerometothedoctrineofMosaicauthorshipdidnotpreventitsripeningintoadogma。
　　ThebookofGenesiswasuniversallyheldtobeanaccount，notonlydivinelycomprehensivebutmiraculouslyexact，ofthecreationandofthebeginningsoflifeontheearth；anaccounttowhichalldiscoveriesineverybranchofsciencemust，underpainsandpenalties，bemadetoconform。InEnglish-speakinglandsthishaslasteduntilourowntime：themosteminentofrecentEnglishbiologistshastoldushowineverypathofnaturalsciencehehas，atsomestageinhiscareer，comeacrossabarrierlabelled“NothoroughfareMoses。”
　　AfavouritesubjectoftheologicaleloquencewastheperfectionofthePentateuch，andespeciallyofGenesis，notonlyasarecordofthepast，butasarevelationofthefuture。
　　TheculminationofthisviewintheProtestantChurchwasthePansophiaMosaicaofPfeiffer，aLutherangeneralsuperintendent，orbishop，innorthernGermany，nearthebeginningoftheseventeenthcentury。HedeclaredthatthetextofGenesis“mustbereceivedstrictly“；that“itcontainsallknowledge，humananddivine“；that“twenty-eightarticlesoftheAugsburgConfessionaretobefoundinit“；that“itisanarsenalofargumentsagainstallsectsandsortsofatheists，pagans，Jews，Turks，Tartars，papists，Calvinists，Socinians，andBaptists“；“thesourceofallsciencesandarts，includinglaw，medicine，philosophy，andrhetoric“；“thesourceandessenceofallhistoriesandofallprofessions，trades，andworks“；“anexhibitionofallvirtuesandvices“；“theoriginofallconsolation。”
　　ThisutteranceresoundedthroughGermanyfrompulpittopulpit，growinginstrengthandvolume，untilacenturylateritwasechoedbackbyHuet，theeminentbishopandcommentatorofFrance。Hecitedahundredauthors，sacredandprofane，toprovethatMoseswrotethePentateuch；andnotonlythis，butthatfromtheJewishlawgivercametheheathentheology——thatMoseswas，infact，nearlythewholepaganpantheonrolledintoone，andreallythebeingworshippedundersuchnamesasBacchus，Adonis，andApollo。[472]
　　[472]ForthepassagefromHuxleyregardingMosaicbarrierstomodernthought，seehisEssays，recentlypublished。ForPfeiffer，seeZoeckler，TheologieundNaturwissenschaft，vol。i，pp。688，689。ForSt。Jerome’sindifferenceastotheMosaicauthorship，seethefirstoftheexcellentSketchesofthePentateuchCriticism，bytheRev。S。J。Curtiss，intheBibliothecaSacraforJanuary，1884。ForHuet，seealsoCurtiss，ibid。
　　Aboutthemiddleofthetwelfthcenturycame，sofarastheworldnowknows，thefirstgainsayerofthisgeneraltheory。ThenitwasthatAbenEzra，thegreatestbiblicalscholaroftheMiddleAges，venturedverydiscreetlytocallattentiontocertainpointsinthePentateuchincompatiblewiththebeliefthatthewholeofithadbeenwrittenbyMosesandhandeddowninitsoriginalform。Hisopinionwasbaseduponthewell-knowntextswhichhaveturnedallreallyeminentbiblicalscholarsinthenineteenthcenturyfromtheoldviewbyshowingtheMosaicauthorshipofthefivebooksintheirpresentformtobeclearlydisprovedbythebooksthemselves；and，amongthesetexts，accountsofMoses’owndeathandburial，aswellasstatementsbasedonnames，events，andconditionswhichonlycameintobeingagesafterthetimeofMoses。
　　ButAbenEzrahadevidentlynoaspirationsformartyrdom；hefatheredtheideauponarabbiofapreviousgeneration，and，havingveiledhisstatementinanenigma，addedthecaution，“Lethimwhounderstandsholdhistongue。”[473]
　　[473]ForthetextsreferredtobyAbenEzraasincompatiblewiththeMosaicauthorshipofthePentateuch，seeMeyer，GeschichtederExegese，vol。i，pp。85-88；andforapithyshortaccount，Moore’sintroductiontoTheGenesisofGenesis，byB。W。Bacon，Hartford，1893，p。23；alsoCurtiss，asabove。ForafullexhibitionoftheabsoluteincompatibilityofthesetextswiththeMosaicauthorship，etc。，seeTheHigherCriticismofthePentateuch，byC。A。Briggs，D。D。，NewYork，1893，especiallychap。iv；alsoRobertsonSmith，art。Bible，inEncycl。Brit。
　　Foraboutfourcenturiesthelearnedworldfollowedtheprudentrabbi’sadvice，andthentwonotedscholars，oneofthemaProtestant，theotheraCatholic，revivedhisidea。Thefirstofthese，Carlstadt，insistedthattheauthorshipofthePentateuchwasunknownandunknowable；theother，AndreasMaes，expressedhisopinionintermswhichwouldnotnowoffendthemostorthodox，thatthePentateuchhadbeeneditedbyEzra，andhadreceivedintheprocesssundrydivinelyinspiredwordsandphrasestoclearthemeaning。Boththeseinnovatorsweredealtwithpromptly：Carlstadtwas，forthisandothertroublesomeideas，suppressedwiththeapplauseoftheProtestantChurch；