objections which James Koch* had made to Bengel's system, especially to the second part of his Old Testament chronology, which discusses the seventy weeks of Daniel.

The fourth treats of "the last periods of the world;" distinguishes true millenarianism from false; and considers the authority and importance belonging to terms and forms of expression in Scripture. Kohlreiff's loud complaint of abatement in the zeal of orthodox Lutherans against millenarianism is here first animadverted on; together with what the Dean had considered as valid objections to the millenarianism of Bengel, who is glad to find an abatement of the zeal above mentioned; and states, that pure millenarian doctrine, which is of no worldly and earthly character, but spiritual and heavenly, is perfectly agreeable to Holy Scripture. He then remarks, that all lovers of the revelation of Jesus Christ, and of its true exposition, must surely rejoice with himself, that so prompt and diligent an opponent had not been able to bring forward a single objection of any weight. That this spoke in favour of his own chronology. That, from christian regard and respect, he wished the undue warmth with which this writer in his advanced years had defended his own sentiments, might subside into meekness of wisdom; that, by the same word and truth of the Lord, which he appeared so much to value, he might be sanctified entirely; and that the impressive testimony which he had borne on various occasions by his writings, &c., against the offences of this present world, might thus have its more effectual triumph. To this chapter were added, remarks upon the terms and manner of expression used in Scripture; showing that, as by the way they strikingly harmonize with the character of inspiration belonging to the whole sacred volume, so they ought to be made our own standard of expression in prayers, praises, sermons, and common life. He had introduced these remarks, because the word chiliasm was used in the Lutheran church as but another name for heresy. Whereas the doctrine of a future thousand years of peculiar blessing to the church of Christ is, by Rev. xx., a scriptural doctrine. It is only men's false descriptions of this blessed millennium that are unscriptural and heretical.

The fifth chapter is entitled, "The observable extent of the Scripture Line of Chronology." It notices two reviews (in main points very favourable ones) of the "Ordo Temporum;" and adds a few corrective observations.

* See his "Elements of a Safe and Correct Chronology."

The sixth chapter replies to several groundless objections of a reviewer (in the "Authentic Details," part 33,) against Bengel's chronological system in general, and against that of the Apocalypse in particular.

The seventh concludes the work, by commending the preceding investigations to the attentive consideration of sincere Christians.

II. Of his "Confirmed Testimony to the Truth," the first part was a rejoinder to Dean Kohlreiff's reply.* The most important objection which Kohlreiff had made against Bengel was, where he says, in sect. 7, that Bengel's views of the millennium must necessarily tend to a dreadful dissettlement of all true religion; for, that in his express mention of the spiritual privileges which are to be retained in his millennial kingdom, he never says one word of the continued use of the Scriptures, the symbolical books, the sacrament of baptism, the confessional, the ministerial office, or the Lutheran religion, hereby proving himself guilty of very ominous omissions. Bengel replied: "This is a heavy charge indeed, and may well serve to set every body against me. In expressing anticipations, however, of the millennial kingdom, I have mentioned things which could not possibly be thought of apart from the continued use of the Scriptures and the sacred ministry; neither is that the only occasion whereon I have intimated that I could not attempt to mention and settle every thing. But with those three inseparables, the Bible, baptism, and the ministry, Kohlreiff has arbitrarily rivetted three other matters which, especially in their modern form, are comparatively recent, and of less importance; and the continuation of which, to the end of the world, he cannot evince from Holy Scripture. Is it then a dangerous unsettling of religion, if I do not maintain their continuance into the millennium? Was there no religion till the symbolical books, the confessional, and Luther had appeared?"

We need not go on with the remaining particulars of this controversy; for Kohlreiff, with all his occasional vehemence, adopted here, for the most part, very weak and obtuse objections; not to mention that we have already noticed a much more important opponent; and shall meet with several others in Bengel's literary correspondence.

Kohlreiff had replied to the strictures in Bengel's "Age of the World,” by “ A collateral Treatise on the World's long duration; inferring and maintaining the same from the true Chronology of Scripture, against that of Mr. Bengel, which involves a double Millennium."

The second part of the work reviewed objections raised against his general exegesis, and particularly upon prophecy.—1. His exposition of the seventy weeks of Daniel had been questioned by Baumgarten in his "Illustrations of General History;" by Dr. Clauswitz, who thought that every calculation of the seventy weeks ought to proceed upon nine postulates, one of which was, that "by years and weeks are meant no other divisions of time than were commonly expressed by those terms among the Jews." The other postulates, Bengel said, made nothing against him; on the contrary, he could show, that his exegesis granted more than they required. Having then to do only with the one here adduced, he showed, that it could not in reason apply to the prophetic periods, especially to Ezekiel xl. 5; consequently it could not require him to renounce his interpretation.

66

2. James Koch, in his work entitled, "Attention to the sum of particulars, proved to be as necessary in learned Controversies as in judicial Trials," had brought several objections against Bengel's Age of the World ;" and had proposed another interpretation of the seventy weeks of Daniel, making them simple (weeks or) septenaries of years, and intercalating between them, at different places, a distribution of 119 years of jargon. Bengel remarked, that such a mode of proceeding was in the highest degree arbitrary; that either the series of the seventy weeks must remain unbroken, or any one has a right to intercalate what he pleases. 3. He examines, by the way, some objections against particular passages of his New Testament criticism.

4. He adverts to the controversy into which he had been drawn by Drümel, who had maintained against Schöttgen that the day of our Lord's crucifixion was Wednesday. Bengel was requested, through Schäffer, for his opinion, and his answer, which, with Schäffer's remarks, was printed at Leipsie in 1746, was entitled, "Proofs that the Day of our Lord's Crucifixion was Friday.” Drümel published a reply, entitled, “A continuation of the Proof that the Day of our Lord's Crucifixion was Wednesday;" and challenged Bengel roundly to refute him. The challenge appeared in the second volume of the "Acta Histor. Eccles." Bengel, therefore, inserted in the present work what further he had to say upon the subject, as follows:-" By comparing the four Gospels together, we get quite a journal, as it were, from our Lord's death to his resurrection, inclusive; and this journal evidently gives no more than three days. Now, upon considering what days of the week these were, we perceive

that our Saviour's death can be assigned to no earlier day of the week than Friday; for the expression, "the day of the preparation," (τaρασкεvn,) always signifies, when thus grammatically absolute, the preparation for the weekly Sabbath. Besides, it is certain that Christ rose on the first day of the week (Sunday;) and the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, which is the first day of the Passover, (Matt. xxvi. 17—20,) fell that year on the Thursday. As for the objection, that, by this reckoning, Christ abode not three whole days and nights in the sepulchre; it may be replied, either that the expression, "three days and three nights" is not to be understood strictly, which we may see intimated where it is said, "on the third day he shall rise again," (Mark ix. 31; Luke xviii. 33;) or that the expression, he shall be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," (Matt. xii. 40,) is to be understood so extensively, as to include Christ's previous depth of humiliation.

The third and last part of this work contained confirmations of some principal points in "The Revelation of Jesus Christ;" and was drawn up in question and answer. But we may here properly pass over it; having already dwelt so largely on his apocalyptical exegesis.

III. Of his "Vindication of the Scriptures," the first part contained another rejoinder to Kohlreiff; and the second, another to James Koch. For Kohlreiff had published, in the year 1750, another violent controversial piece.* Here, with all the wrath and bigotry of a stiff orthodoxical champion, who feeling his defeat, still hopes to embarrass his opponent, he had raked together a number of unfair inferences from Bengel's expressions, and thus represented him as a vain-glorious vapourer, a most unsound expositor, a critic who designedly deteriorated and wrested the word of God, a despiser of Luther, an idolatrous devotee of Spener; in short, a most dangerous sectary and millenarian. Bengel in his preface observes, that "wise and discriminating persons, who have read Kohlreiff's gross perversions of truth and justice, will think this labour of mine unnecessary; and I almost agree with them that it is so. Controversial writings in general effect but little good; on the other hand, we have no time to lose; and the

* "The Winepress of Wrath in the Last Times; or a plain Interpretation of the 34th, 35th, and 63d chapters of Isaiah; with a new Appendix, drawn up for the honour of Scripture; wherein the Herbrechtingen millennarianism is exposed in its naked knavery, and in its hostility to the Lutheran Evangelical Church. By G. Kohlreiff, Licentiate of Ratzeburg."

labour spent upon them might be better employed. Still it is but reasonable that I should be considerate of others who may need to have Kohlreiff's errors refuted, and may look to me for some answer to his objections against those truths which I have defended. Such are the persons I may be useful to; and I shall adopt the shortest method of attempting it; namely, by omitting to notice all personalities, and paying attention simply to the matter in hand." In the reply itself, Bengel acknowledges it to be quite true that he was bound in conscience deeply to venerate the memory of one who had long since happily departed in the faith of Christ, and whose name was embalmed in the affections of thousands, namely, the beatified Spener; and he chose to speak thus emphatically of him, because many others were so very scrupulous of doing it. At the same time, he was far enough from having the slightest inclination to undervalue Luther; and though he had ventured to make a new German translation of the Greek Testament, even in this he had acted agreeably to the mind of Luther himself; for Luther had expressed a wish that every city might have its own translator. As for the taunt of millenarianism, it might apply as easily to Kohlreiff as to himself: for that he also had found in the Revelation of St. John, a prediction concerning a thousand happy years, which he considered as already fulfilled. Conscientiously could he (Bengel) subscribe to the Augsburg Confession, as declaring those to be in error who say that a temporal kingdom will be possessed by the saints and the godly, and that by them the ungodly will be rooted out of the earth. If, moreover, by millenarians are meant those who teach that the partakers of the first resurrection shall spend their millennial reign upon earth in all sorts of corporeal gratifications, then he, for his part, was as far from being a millenarian as any one of his defamers. Indeed, his own scriptural statements respecting a far purer millennium had already been the means of opening the eyes of many shortsighted persons, who had availed themselves of unscriptural millenarianism, for the indulgence of every dreaming fancy. Hereby had a kind of good been done, which antimillenarians would find it difficult to point out in any opposition of theirs.

The second part, containing a reply to James Koch,* went chiefly to show, that this writer, in endeavouring to support his

• See Koch's philosophical “ Essay on clearness and accuracy in historical arrangement and chronology; showing their extreme importance to sound reasoning and morals."