misapprehended the fundamental principles of the subject which we have presumed to discuss, it will be seen, as we advance, that the glaring discrepancies which have marked, and which continue to mark, the interpretations made by different individuals of equal intellectual and moral qualifications, are to be traced directly to this very deficiency—the absence of a well-established and all-comprehensive Method. The following work, it is hoped, will be found to contribute something towards supplying this evident defect. It will not, however, be supposed that because methods have not formed the subject of discussion in our exegetical works, the Bible has, therefore, been interpreted without them. What we complain of is, not the absence of methods, but the failure to settle which one of those in use is right, and to determine with accuracy the principles and laws contained under it. Men have pursued now one and now another method, according to their fancy or the exigencies of the case they desired to make out, while the general rules of interpretation have been either applied or disregarded in obedience to the requirements of whatever method happened for the time to be in use. It has, therefore, been deemed necessary to discuss the claims of those which have hitherto been pursued, before entering upon the exposition and application of that which gives the title to the present work. And, notwithstanding the space covered by this preliminary review, it is hoped that its importance as a preparation for what comes after will be a sufficient apology for its introduction. It is hardly to be expected, considering the prevalency of religious error and the multiformity of religious prejudice, that we have, in this part, entirely escaped giving offense. Still, we have carefully shunned all unpleasant allusions to denominational peculiarities, and have left the various fruits of false methods to their own fate, confining ourselves almost exclusively to the exposure and eradication of their common cause. On the subject of Human Creeds-involved in the discussion of the Dogmatic Method-we have spoken with great freedom and considerable elaborateness. We felt justified in adopting this course, without fear of encountering partisan prejudice or personal ill will, from the fact that creeds were regarded as the common ground of nearly all Protestants, how widely soever different in other particulars. And we have no doubt that even those who may dissent from the conclusions introduced, will cheerfully accord to us the privilege of exercising that right which is at once the proud distinction and impregnable defense of Protestantism-assured as they are, that it has been exercised as temperately as our profound convictions of duty would allow. As to the style of the work, it is sufficient to say that perspicuity has been the object of our chief solicitude. We have constantly had reference to that class of readers whose stuIdies have not been directed into the channels from which the subject matter of this work is derived. How far we may have succeeded in bringing the History, Philosophy, Theology, and Science involved in our plan within the grasp of such readers, it would be impossible now to say; but we have constantly felt that if our arguments were sound, they could only be effective by being understood; and if they were not, we had no desire to conceal their weakness by enveloping them in the fogs of mystical or metaphysical obscurities. The whole arrangement of the different books, parts, and chapters, has been made with reference to what seemed to be their logical connection, relation, and dependence; and this, if no mistake has been made, will itself contribute to that perspicuity which we have sought to make characteristic of the style. The various works which have been consulted will be referred to as they are quoted. It may not, however, be improper for us here to state our indebtedness to Dr. Enfield's excellent edition of Brucker's Historia Critica Philosophia. In the historical exhibition of Mysticism and of Scholasticism this work has been particularly valuable to us. In the second book we have freely availed ourselves of the lucid and able works of Sir John Herschel, John Stuart Mill, and others, and have not scrupled to quote largely from them, whenever by so doing we thought the object we had in view could be best promoted. Conscious as we are of many imperfections in the work which is now submitted to the public, we doubt not that a discriminating criticism will discover many more. But in view of the numerous other duties which lie before us, we cannot hope to be able at an early day to give it a thorough revisal, and do not feel justified in withholding it longer from its mission. Hence, such as it is, it is sent forth, to meet with whatever reception may be granted to it by an intelligent Christian community. AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, MAY 18, 1859. The great masses of society are actual, though not positive skep- tics. The skepticism of the eighteenth compared with that of the nineteenth century. Comte's Positive Philosophy. Smaller stars. Actual skepticism defined. It accounts for the rapid growth of "Spiritualism," etc. Not confined to these developments. The fortress of this skepticism. The responsibility of the church with reference to it........... THE PRESENT STATE OF HERMENEUTICAL SCIENCE. Two ways mentioned of judging this science. Neither correct. PAGE fectual union of Tract Societies and "Evangelical Alliances." Method defined. Rule defined. Their relation to each other. The one immediate, the other ultimate in effect. Correct rules and a false method lead to falsehood. Method the first consideration in scientific inquiry. The province of each illustrated. Master and servant. General and subordinates. The materials for a building, and its erection. Failure of Hermeneutics accounted for. Book-keeping. Solomon's 25 Webster's definition of mysticism imperfect. Mill's definition. |