e Messiah.
(Compare _Samarit. Briefwechsel_, communicated by _Schnurrer_ in
_Eichhorn's Repert._ ix. S. 27.) It is true that from other passages
("_Epist. Samarit. ad Jobum Ludolfum_," in _Eichhorn's Repert._
xiii. S. 281-9, compared with _de Sacy_ "_de Vers. Samarit. Arab.
Pentateuchi_ in _Eichhorn's Biblioth._" x. S. 54) it appears that, in
accordance with their doctrine of a double Messiah--one who had already
appeared, and one who was still to come--they referred our passage,
partly to the former, and denied its reference to the real Messiah. But
this is of no importance. For, as Gesenius also has remarked (_Carmina
Samaritana_, p. 75), the doctrine of a double Messiah is of recent
origin with the Samaritans as well as with the Jews; and hence, it is
very probable that the reference to the real Messiah was, formerly, the
generally prevailing one, which was, even afterwards, to a large extent
retained, as is shown by the passage first quoted.--_Finally_, In the
Christian Church the Messianic interpretation has been the prevailing
one ever since the earliest times. We find it as early as _Justin
Martyr_. [Pg 76] The Greek and Latin Fathers agree in it. (Compare the
statements in _Reinke_.) Even _Grotius_ could not but admit that this
passage referred to the Messiah; and _Clericus_ stands quite alone
and isolated, in his time, as an objector against the Messianic
interpretation of it.

But even in the Canon itself, this passage is understood of a personal
Messiah. David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, look upon it in this light.
(Concerning this point, compare the inquiries in the subsequent
portions of this work.)

The entire relation of the Pentateuch to the succeeding sacred
literature, and the circumstance that the former constitutes the
foundation of the latter, and contains, in the germ, all that is
afterwards more fully developed, entitle us to expect, that the
Messianic idea has also found its expression in those books. The more
prominent the place occupied, in the later books, by the announcement
of a personal Messiah, the more unlikely it will be to him who has
acquired right fundamental views regarding the Pentateuch, to conceive
that this announcement should be wanting in it--the announcement,
especially, of the Messiah in His kingly office; for it is this office
of the Messiah which, in the Old Testament, generally takes a prominent
place, and is, before all others, represented in the subsequent books.
But t