but a bundle of negative ideas. In addition to his just remark, that what he first describes is the old and sound grammatical interpretation,' we deem it a duty to say, that the whole compass of interpretative theology does not present a more illustrious example of this method of faithful investigation, than is to be found in the Commentaries of CALVIN. The astonishing sagacity of that Reformer, the clearness of his habits of thinking, his orderly disposal of materials, his early studies in jurisprudence, and above all, the eminent gifts of Divine grace which shone in him, rendered him pre-eminent as a solid, luminous, impartial, and truly rational interpreter. This praise has been conceded by persons who were far removed from his theological sentiments. We beg also to interpose a suggestion relative to the persons mentioned in the last sentence from Mr. Rose. The excess of caution is the safer side, but the statement is too loosely made. We think much better of Schleusner than to give him over to the Neologists; and we believe that Mr. Rose would be equally unwilling to do so. Can any person of sensibility read his Preface to his last work (Lexicon in LXX.), without receiving a strong impression of his integrity, humility, candour, and we hope that we may add piety too? Mr. R. should have told us whether he means both the Rosenmüllers, or only the son. The observation is, in but a slight degree, applicable to the father. His Scholia on the New Testament are a very useful compilation from Grotius and other Arminian commentators, and from the German writers of moderate principles, whose paragraphs are copied abundantly without acknowledgement. With regard to the Son, we are glad of this opportunity to state, that, in the recent edition of his Scholia on the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and Isaiah, and in his new works on Jeremiah and the other prophets, he has made some important retractations of his former opinions, and has advanced sentiments which will, we hope, for ever separate him from the Neologist divines. The statement relative to Kuinöl is unfair. Mr. R. should not have omitted to mention that, though he does indeed state the interpretation of the anti-supernaturalist school, he renders his readers an important service in so doing, as he adduces arguments on the other side for the satisfactory establishment of the truth, though not always, we confess, with so much life and earnestness as we could wish. Neither has he dealt quite righteously with Kuinöl in p. 178, where he brings charges in reference to Mat. i. 18, without the least intimation that, in the prior part of the Annotation, the true doctrine is firmly maintained and, with regard to the other instances, we humbly conceive that Mr. R. has read the passages superficially, or has been too hasty VOL. XXVIII. N.S.

C

in his censures. These friendly remonstrances, justice compels us to make, though we are far from approving of all that Kuinöl says, or of his manner of saying it.

It is obvious, that the most false and dangerous notions upon the INSPIRATION of the Scriptures lie at the basis of the Neologistic theory. These, in their wild variety, inconsistency, and audacity, Mr. Rose has briefly described; but we wish he had treated the subject at greater extent and with more of close examination and accuracy. The testimony of the scriptural writers themselves, is our only source of evidence on this cardinal point. That testimony is admissible, and comes with its full force, as soon as their perfect integrity and credibility -are established by that grand body of proof which has been so often and so triumphantly laid before the world by authors on the Evidences of Revelation; and that testimony is most decisive, to the solemn affirmation, that what they wrote and spake, was the wisdom of God,"-" the hidden wisdom,"revealed unto them by His Spirit," the mind of Christ," "the words which the Holy Spirit taught,"-" the command"ments of the Lord;"-so that " he who despiseth, despiseth "not man, but GOD." We are happy, however, to receive from Mr. R. the following abstract of a paragraph in a review article by the illustrious ERNESTI; whom it would be well if those who admire as a scholar, would listen to as a divine.

He says, that, however we may be content to depend on human writers in human matters, yet, in divine ones, containing rules of life and faith, and written by men unused to composition, not possessing the ability which would enable them perhaps to explain themselves with the necessary clearness, or to express themselves so that the readers should think of nothing more nor less nor other than they did, and not writing in a language which they had learned by rule, we cannot be content to depend on mere human strength. For it is harder to write accurately than to think rightly; a truth very conspicuous in the writings of philosophers, who so often fail to express their own meaning with accuracy. He concludes that, in the actual writing, the apostles were therefore assisted by the Holy Spirit, the choice and order of matter pointed out, and the necessary accuracy and certainty given; and that, otherwise, their writings could not properly be proposed as a rule of faith and life.' p. 124.

We have already protested against the mistake (fundamental and dangerous, we must call it, because it makes human authority the ground of faith in Divine truths,) which runs through Mr. R.'s book; that the effectual way of preserving a community of Christians, and, by necessary consequence, all and singular the individuals composing that community, from error in the most important of all concerns, is subscription to declarations of faith as the Church's unalterable opinions. (p. 22

& 119). He also goes so far as to intimate not obscurely, (p. 23.) that, by this method, the ministers and professors of religion may enjoy a CERTAINTY that they possess the 'genuine form' of truth; such a certainty as excludes doubt, as leaves us no room and no tendency to question.' (p. 23.) Every man must perceive that this is a topic of the very highest importance; and upon it we are compelled to be at issue with Mr. Rose. But while, as Christians, Protestants, and men of common sense, we cannot but see the perfect nullity of all attempts to set up ANY human authority for deciding the interpretation of the Scriptures and determining controversies in religion; we are equally, on the other hand, aware of the danger of perpetual doubt in relation to our most pressing interests for this life and for the dread eternity on which we are entering. Scepticism is the handmaid to infidelity, and is utterly irreconcileable with the existence and exercise of that FAITH which the New Testament constantly describes as a mental quality, a personal possession, belonging to all true Christians. We meet the difficulty by saying, that there is "a more excellent way;"-there is a ground of moral certainty, which involves no absurdity, which warrants no intolerance, which gives ascendancy to no human pride, which flatters no party or order of men, which the most illiterate of sincere Christians may and does enjoy, and for which the richest in talent and learning can find no substitute: we will express it in the words of the Divine Author of our religion: "My "doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me. If any man will

"do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of "God." This is the principle which alone can produce a rational and solid satisfaction, a certainty which will stand the test of the most rigorous examination. It is true, that this practical experience of the vitality and power of religion is an evidence, in the complete sense, only to the person possessing it. As the evidence of the bodily senses cannot be communicated to another person in whom the proper organ is wanting or is vitiated, so, this "demonstration of the Spirit and of power" is incapable of being transferred into any breast where dwells not that moral sensibility which produces a sincere surrendering of the whole soul to the proper influence of religion. And this is a circumstance immensely to its recommendation; for its range is thus shewn to be only spiritual, its production to be only by methods operating on man's intellectual and moral capacities, so that, consequently, no room is left (without the grossest inconsistency) for the use of force, worldly interest, sinister inducements, or any other of the foul machines of intolerance. Experience also proves, that the

operation of this principle, when furthest removed from all unhallowed control, has a power unknown to all human contrivances, to produce kindness, forbearance, meekness, and mutual esteem among genuine and practical Christians, annihilating the most important differences, softening asperities, destroying the very root of intolerance, and enabling all to 米 On keep the unity of the " Spirit in the bond of peace,'

this momentous subject, we shall add only a few words from the great scholar above mentioned. It hath pleased the wisdom and mercy of God, to commit this work of persuasion to the Holy Spirit and his Divine testimony, than which nothing can be imagined more efficacious for the purpose. As, at the first promulgation of Christianity, that Holy Spirit gave to the doctrine of Jesus the testimony of truth and Divine authority, and thus brought vast multitudes of men to the faith of Christ; so, in all following time, he has ever been the Witness of heavenly truth in the word of God, to the minds of men, banishing every ground of doubt.Although this blessing, through the prevenient grace of God, is often bestowed on those who thought not of it; yet, the duty should never be neglected,-when we take up the holy Scriptures for religious purposes,-of intreating by earnest prayer, that God would grant this influence on our souls, by the power of his Spirit, thus leading us to faith, or strengthening the faith already received, and making it abundantly efficacious to holiness."+

It is time that we should return to the German translation of Mr. Rose's volume. It appears to have been executed by a person of ability, and not slightly informed on the subjects which he was laying before his countrymen. He has added a Preface and numerous Notes; but some of the latter have been communicated to him by his friends, and are distinguished by signatures different from his own. We shall select some passages, which appear to us the most interesting, either as shewing the manner in which those who have the best means of information, view Mr. Rose's assertions and reasonings, or as throwing light upon the general subject.

We here present the translation of a book, which contains heavy

Our conviction of the importance of these sentiments must be our apology for referring to a fuller investigation of them, in Dr. Smith's Discourse "On the Means of obtaining Satisfaction with regard to the Truth of Religious Sentiments;" reviewed in Vol. XIX. of our New Series, p 175; February, 1823.

+ J. A. Ernesti Opuscula Theologica; p. 611, 613; Lips. 1792.

complaints against the German divines and against the Protestant Church in Germany, which, if they were well-founded, could not but occasion deep grief to every German. Before a celebrated English University, before the whole British public, this Author accuses Protestant divines, in part of infidelity towards the Christian religion, and in part of perverting and deforming it; he accuses them of rationalist principles, which, in his eyes, are not much better than atheism; and he attacks the most learned, judicious, and upright men of our country, with an ardency which might sometimes provoke a laugh, if it did not refer to a subject of such high importance as the Christian religion. The point in question is, Ought the sacred records to be interpreted, according to the fixed principles of grammar and history, or according to a previously formed system of doctrine? The Author determines in favour of the latter course of proceeding, and condemns the former, though it appears to be the only course that is just and reasonable. He is of the opinion, that churches should be confined within very strait limits, that faith should be defended by the arm of power, and that not a letter in [the public confessions of] it should be altered. Whatever that authority prescribes, is Christian truth, and must be resolutely maintained. It gives him little or no concern, that the powers of the human mind are ever advancing, that observation and intelligence are continually increasing, that the desire of knowledge is augmenting, and that many opinions, which formerly were regarded as truths that could never be disputed, are now discovered to be errors and superstitions. From the improved knowledge of languages, from more extensive and judicious views of history, and from the study of philosophy, as it has been excited in Germany by the critical system of Kant, it was a necessary consequence, that a more correct method cf interpreting the records of our holy religion should become prevalent: and, if here and there an individual has gone beyond the bounds of reason, grammar, and history, his error is soon corrected by other critical interpreters, who are still cautiously proceeding in the same prescribed path.

The design, in giving to the public a translation of this book, (which, on account of the style of the Author, who is fond of very long periods, and does not always appear to have clear ideas, or intelligibly to express them, or know how to repeat them in few words, is no easy business,) is to awaken the attention of Protestant divines to the mass of accusations which an English divine has brought against them before the numerous members of his University; and thus to induce some of them, who, to habits of reflection and ability in writing, unite a solid acquaintance with the languages of the Old and New Testament, and with ancient languages generally, and who likewise are accurately acquainted with the spirit of our theological literature, that they may bring forwards, according to the strictest truth, an exhibition of the present state of the Protestant religion, and may put to silence the frivolous or ignorant accusers of our divines and philosophers, or at least give them some matter for reflection. Doctrines are known by their fruits: and who, in this