ture and of art. No infidel can prove that they knew more than the science necessary for the skilful management of a fishing boat, or the collection of taxes. And yet they have devised the only scheme which turns out to be in accordance with the course of nature; a scheme which has survived the extinction of most others prevalent in their day, a system in advance still,-no one can tell how much, even of our own age. Now it is a well known fact that in the progress of discovery hitherto, no man has gone much in advance of his own generation. Society and science work themselves into a state for the discoveries which actually take place, and hence it happens, that, about the same time, the same invention is often made on both sides of the globe. A controversy still exists respecting the discovery of the art of printing, and gunpowder, the application of steam, the invention of the quadrant, and many of the improvements in chemistry. We ask then, how it has happened, that these Gallileans stepped over all the science of their own age, established a system in strict accordance with the course of nature, disclosed elementary principles of morals, en. tirely unknown to the philosophy of that age, and arrived at, in the history of man, only by long and painful experiments of many thousand years! Why, let the sceptic tell us, has not science struck out principle after principle, that could long since have been organized into a system which should accord with the constitution and course of nature? To our minds, the greatest of all miracles would be, that unaided and uninspired fishermen should have projected such a scheme of christianity.

Revealed religion, then, is in accordance with the course of nature. To reason against or reject it, on the principles commonly adopted by infidels, is to call in question the whole system of things around us. Nor will it answer any valuable purpose to laugh or mock at it. "There is argument neither in drollery nor in jibe." If, in spite of this striking accordance with the course of nature, it can be proved false, let the evidence be fairly brought forward. Let its miracles be set aside. Let its prophecies be shown not to have been uttered. And then let it be shown how it is, that such a system has originated from such a source; a system which has bowed the intellects of such men as Bacon and Locke and Boyle and Hale and Boorhave, and Newton and Edwards and Dwight. But if the demonstration cannot be made out,-if a single doubt remains, it will not do to deride this religion. It will no more do to meet the announcement of hell with a jeer, than to stand and mock at convulsions, fevers, and groans;-nor should men laugh at the judgment, any more than at the still tread of the pestilence, or the heavings of the earthquake ;-nor will it be at all more the dictate of wisdom to contemn the provisions of redemption, than to

mock the pitying eye of a father, or to meet with contempt the pensive sigh of a mother over our sufferings, or to jeer at the physician who comes reverently, if it may be, to put back from us the heavy pressing hand of God.

ART. VII.-REVIEW OF ERNESTI ON APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES

OF COMMON LIFE TO THE STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES. Ioannis Christiani Gottlieb Ernesti Commentatio de usu communis vitæ ad interpretationem Novi Testamenti.

THE proper principles of interpreting the scriptures, ought long since to have been correctly and universally understood. The interests of truth are sufficiently concerned in it; time enough has elapsed since the bible was given; and controversies enough have arisen from a diversity of views on this subject. It would seem as if the history of theological opinions, might, ages ago, have taught at least this one lesson, that it is utterly hopeless to expect any general prevalence and belief of the truth, without a correct and established system of sacred interpretation. The very nature of the case, might have led to the same conclusion. None but correct principles can lead to correct results; and nothing but the general admission and application of such principles will ever produce that harmony of sentiment, which is so much to be desired. It is, indeed, surprising to us that parties at issue upon the meaning of the scriptures, have not had the wisdom to drop a while the immediate subject of controversy, in order first to agree upon some common and correct principles of ascertaining the true interpretation. This would be ascending to the source of the difficulty. If truth and harmony were their object, this method would be likely to secure it; and the fact that often, at least, this course has not been followed, shows too clearly that such has seldom been the end in view. Different minds, provided they are fair and honest, will not vary widely in the results of investigations conducted upon the same principles. The use of language in scripture, is not arbitrary, its words are not thrown out at random, like the leaves of the Sibyl; its laws of construction are definite and intelligible. Not only may any individual mind apprehend these laws distinctly, but different minds may apprehend them in a similar manner, and be guided by them to the same results. Nor is it impossible or difficult, in the nature of things, for men to agree respecting those principles of moral science, which lie at the foundation of all religious knowledge, and of course, are connected with the business of interpretation. Those truths, for instance, which respect the original

1 7

1

1

constitution of the soul, the nature and tendency of right and wrong, and the essential requisites of free agency, are plain and certain. Whether these points are really of fundamental importance in interpretation, will be seen hereafter. It is enough for our present purpose to say, that in these principles men can coincide; that if they are thus important, it is essential to have correct views of them, as well as of the common principles of interpretation; and that so far as these two are united, the results of scriptural investigation as conducted by different individuals, will accord with each other, and with the truth. Those who think alike and correctly respecting, first, what can and what cannot, be the true meaning of the divine word, (and the human understanding, we believe, is competent to decide on this point,) and who, secondly, apply the right method of ascertaining what the meaning really is, will doubtless mainly coincide in their conclusions, and those conclusions will be founded in truth.

On the other hand, as we have already said, it is vain to expect harmony of sentiment, without an agreement in these fundamental particulars. It is of no avail that theologians read the same. bible, and profess to make it the sole standard of their faith, if they set out to ascertain its meaning with totally different views and principles. It is not the way to travel together, to diverge at the very point of starting. So far as regards a final coincidence of opinion, men might as well take different creeds for their standards at once, as to adopt the bible, while each has his peculiar mode of interpreting the scriptures. He, for example, who spiritualizes every thing, or, in other words, is constantly seeking an analogy between certain facts and principles in the providential, and others in the moral government of God, will depart widely from the results of him, who confines himself to the plain and ordinary maxims of interpretation. The one will make every minute circumstance of a historical event, or of a parable, amount to a direct declaration of a particular doctrine; the other will interpret history as simple history, and the parables as fictitious narratives, intended, by a general resemblance, to illustrate some practical truth. The former will seek in historical facts, or in the system of religious truth, an exact counterpart for every portion of a parabolical narration; the latter will consider the particular circumstances as intended merely to complete the likeness of a real fact, and will expect to derive from the whole but one general doctrine. This he will do on the principle, that such was the nature and use of parables among the Jews. The difference between the two, will not be, that the one believes in the scriptures more implicitly than the other; but that the one believes they teach what the other does not. Both may place the same degree of confidence in what they consider the

testimony of the bible. The simple question is, what is that testimony; and each one will decide this question by his peculiar principles of interpreting, and come to a result corresponding to his own system.

In like manner, he who adopts the literal mode of interpretation, and who, moreover, is not startled at the supposition, that God is the author of all the acts of his creatures, sin as well as holiness, will interpret those passages which speak of God's agency in the sinful conduct of men, in a very different manner from him who follows the light of sound reason and known Jewish usage. The one will doubtless come to the conclusion, that God is the author of all the volitions of moral agents; the other will consider the ascription of a direct agency to God, in hardening the heart, for example, as merely common Jewish phraseology, to express permission. This is all that he can make the language to mean, consistently with his views of free agency, and of just interpretation. And let him not be condemned as making, in this case, a profane and unwarrantable use of philosophy. The advocate of divine efficiency makes use of philosophy too, and that of a very peculiar kind. He believes that acts of will may be irresistibly determined by divine power, and yet be free. He believes that the consciousness of acting freely, is consistent with the fact that he does not thus act. He believes that God may punish for conduct, which He, by his own agency, renders unavoidable. This is his system, and he brings it with him to the interpretation of the scriptures, not derives it from them. Most evidently, he who adopts an interpretation which supposes these things to be true, must previously believe that they may be true; otherwise he would seek a different one. He has a preconceived system after all, which materially shapes his views of the meaning of scripture, and he must rectify its errors, before his results will ever coincide with those obtained by correct principles of interpretation, and of moral science.

Again, he who admits that there may be sin, which does not consist in voluntary action, will never come to a thorough doctrinal agreement with him who denies it. Their different philosophical views will have, probably, the same effect, as different principles of interpretation. The one will find no difficulty in believing that human nature is itself sinful, if a text of scripture will admit that interpretation, even to the exclusion of a more obvious one. Sin, in his view, being such, and such the original constitution and state of the soul, as created by God, that sin can pertain to that constitution or state, he will naturally consider many passages as asserting the fact that it is so. His philosophy renders the construction admissible; and then the aid of literal interpretation, which is always near at hand, is only to be called in, to decide the point.

Thus a belief in physical depravity flows naturally and necessarily from admitting, that it is consistent with philosophy, and from adopting the literal mode of interpretation. On the other hand, he whose views of sin are such, that he cannot predicate it of the simple constitution or being of man, as distinct from his actions, will not believe that the bible, when properly interpreted, does so. He must and will believe, as firmly as he does his own existence, that all parts of the great system of truth perfectly agree with each other; that, beyond all question, nothing is sin, or sinful, in which men have no choice; and that, therefore, no passage of scripture, in its real meaning, can ascribe sinfulness to any thing else. These will be with him, fixed and abiding principles; and they will lead to widely different results from those in the case before supposed. There is no reason to hope for similar conclusions from premises so diverse. He who starts with the assumption that human nature may itself be sinful, and who applies, moreover, a literal interpretation to certain texts, will inevitably come out with the doctrine of physical depravity; while he who considers such an assumption as obviously repugnant to reason and truth, and applies the known laws of common Jewish usage, will as inevitably reject it.

In like manner, we may trace to the same causes, all diversity of opinion respecting the doctrines of scripture. Not but that these causes are themselves effects, produced by other causes more remote. The ultimate reason why a man adopts a given system of philosophy or interpretation, may often be ignorance, or prejudice, or some worldly passion. We suppose, indeed, that all departure from truth, and of course, all difference of opinion, originates here. The human intellect would probably be a perfect instrument of investigating the nature and relations of things, were it purified from the influence of all wrong principles and feelings. But perverted as it is, it does not embrace error, without endeavoring to prop itself up by some plausible system. It cannot be made to follow the leadings of an evil heart, without a struggle. It must first impose upon itself. Men cannot really give their assent to falsehood, till by false reasoning they have made it wear the guise and appearance of truth. It is sufficient, therefore, to trace all erroneous views of the meaning of scripture, to false interpretation and false philosophy. Were these entirely done away, the light which would burst in, would compel assent to the truth.

The dissertation, whose title we have placed at the head of this article, is an attempt to aid in the accomplishment of this important object. The main proposition is, that the language of the new testament is that of common life. The following is an