so long as he relied simply on his imperfectly instructed

Well would it be, if our Rationalist theologians would take to heart these plain, humble confessions of the excellent Boyle, who had found out by his own experience the manner and the limits of natural science!-In these confessions of humility regarding revelation, Bacon, Newton, Keppler, Pascal, Haller, and others have agreed.

"I will not deny," says Claudius, "that I have great joy in this Robert Boyle, this Francis Bacon, this Isaac Newton ;-not so much on account of religion, which, of course, can neither gain nor lose by learned men, be they great or small. But it gives me joy when such a diligent and indefatigable philosopher as Bacon, who had grown old in the study of nature, and who knew by his own observation more respecting it, than almost any other person ;-when such a bird of Jupiter, with keen and piercing eye, as Newton was, who drew the plan and laid the ground, (more admired than used by his successors,) for a new and truly great philosophy, and was one of the first, if not the very first mathematician in Europe;-I say, when we see such men, with all their knowledge, not esteeming themselves wise, and after they have penetrated more deeply than others into the mysteries of nature, standing around the altar and the greater mysteries of God with docility, holding their hats in their hands, as it becomes them to do;-when we see this, we rejoice, and begin to feel more kindly again towards learning, which can allow its friends and adherents to become really more knowing, without at the same time taking away their better reason, and making them fools and despisers of religion. After seeing these men, in this attitude, it produces a strange effect, to see the light troops on the other side, passing by the altar, keeping their hats upon their heads, and turning up their noses contemptuously at its mysteries." Thus far Claudius.* These light troops understand not, in their blindness, those difficult questions of the Lord in the book of Job: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundation of the earth? Declare,

VOL. I.

Claudius' Works, Vol. vi. p. 122.
18

if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the day-spring to know his place? Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea, or hast thou walked in search of the depth? Have the gates of death been open unto thee, or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all. Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high?"

Happy would it be if the theologians of whom we have spoken would come to a right state of feeling upon this subject, and being humbled before the Lord, and thus made truly great,* would confess with Job, "I have uttered that which I understood not,-things too wonderful for me, which I knew not ?"

ART. IX. REVIEW OF OLSHAUSEN'S COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Biblischer Commentar, etc.

BY THE EDITOR.

Biblical Commentary on all the books of the New Testament, designed especially for students and preachers, by Dr. Hermann Olshausen, Professor of Theology in the University at Konigsberg, 2 vols. (containing the Gospels and Acts.) Konigsberg, 1830-32.

In looking over the history of biblical interpretation in the Lutheran Church in Germany, we may discern three general periods, marked by distinct characteristics. For some time after the Reformation, the Lutheran commentators were distinguished by their anxious adherence, in their interpretation of Scripture, to the established system of faith. Instead of enquiring for the real sense of the sacred writers, and endeavouring to unfold their meaning, it seemed to be their great object to confirm the articles of their church by all the proof-texts which could be arrayed in their support. These texts were taken very much according to their traditionary import, without a strict investigation

* Ps. 18: 36.

of their true meaning by the laws of grammatical and historical interpretation. In point of doctrinal freedom and impartiality, the Reformed theologians and commentators were far in advance of those of the Lutheran Church of the same period. "It has been conceded," says Tholuck, "by many candid and learned Lutheran theologians, that the theology of the Reformed Church has, from the first, done more than that of the Lutheran, for the cause of an impartial grammatical and historical interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. While the Lutheran commentators, and Luther himself, made it their chief concern to prove the 'Loci Communes' of the Lutheran system, and to shed additional light upon them by doctrinal and practical digressions; the reformed interpreters, Calvin, Beza, etc. have from the first been characterized by a more severe method. It has been their great object, by the aid of a thorough knowledge of the original languages of the Bible, and of the antiquities, manners, customs, &c. of the ancient world, to give a connected developement of the real sense in the mind of the sacred writers."

While such was the method of the Lutheran interpreters, there could be but little advance in the knowledge of the Scriptures. Nor could even the end they had in view, of confirming the established articles of belief, be attained by the heaping up of promiscuous proof-texts, often bearing very distantly and doubtfully upon the doctrine in behalf of which they were adduced. A tenacious adherence to all the proof-texts ever employed in support of the doctrinal system of Christianity, while it might seem to spring from a deep persuasion of the truth of that system, betrays a lurking skepticism with regard to it. One deeply penetrated with a belief in the truth of the Christian system from his own personal experience of its effects, and from the general tenour of the Scriptures, would not deem a multitude of texts important, as the ground of his faith, nor be greatly moved, though one after another of those on which he had relied, should be swept away by a more thorough examination. But the worst effect of this indiscriminate use of Scripture, is, that it tends to produce that same skepticism about the doctrines of religion, which it betrays. When the student examines into the Scriptural grounds of the belief enjoined upon him, and finds that many of the texts by which it has been supported have no relation to the point they are made to prove, his suspicions are awakened as to the soundness of a doctrine so

badly sustained. Identifying the doctrine with its customary proofs, he is almost ready to pronounce it false; notwithstanding the evidence of some few valid texts, which would have been ample testimony, if they alone had been appealed to.

The second period of which we spoke, grew out of the wants and deficiencies of the first. It was characterized by a freedom from all restraints imposed by established systems, by a revived study of the original languages of the Bible, by the grammatical and lexicographal investigation of its meaning, by the more thorough examination of the canonical authority of the several books of the Bible, and the more critical recension of the received text. But while in respect to freedom and independence of enquiry, and the other above named characteristics, the Lutheran commentators of this period resembled more nearly the commentators of the Reformed Church; in other respects they widely differed. While the early commentators of the Reformed Church, with all their freedom of investigation, regarded the Scriptures with reverence, as the word of God; the Lutheran commentators of the period now under consideration, treated the Bible like any other book, and studied it rather as an interesting relick of antiquity, than as a guide to eternal life.-While the former respected the universal voice of the Church, in the doctrines handed down from earlier times, and received these doctrines, though not as traditionary, or as established by human authority, but as taught in the Bible; the latter regarded them as antiquated and exploded, and treated that wide consent by which they had been established, with contempt.-While the former had shown a deep insight into the doctrinal system of Christianity, and a spiritual apprehension of the more peculiarly evangelical phraseology and ideas; the latter were characterized by a low, superficial conception of the great truths of our religion, and by interpreting the appropriate terms of the New Testament so as to evacuate them of all their significance. This was the period of the theological illuminati, Semler, Paulus, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, De Wette;-a period in which infidelity employed itself about the Bible, detecting its hidden natural beauties, unfolding its literary treasures, explaining its language and imagery, but desecrating its sacred doctrines.

The third period is of recent origin, and combines the

advantages, without sharing the faults, of the former periods. This is the period already ushered in so auspiciously by Neander, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Havernick and Olshausen, and which is continually advancing to higher splendour. In the commentaries of these writers, we perceive the returning spirit of love and reverence for the sacred oracles. Bound no longer by the shackles of authority, like the commentators of the first period after the Reformation, they yet respect the traditionary doctrines and established system of the Church, adopt them as in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, and are far removed from that contempt of long received opinions, which has disfigured the works of their neological predecessors. Possessed of that rich store of exegetical knowledge accumulated by the labours of men of a different spirit and of different aims, they still by no means confine themselves to the grammatical and lexicographal explanation of Scripture; but advance to the higher task of deducing from the Bible its system of doctrines: they seek to apprehend the fulness, the harmony, and consistency of revealed truth. In their expositions of doctrine, they begin to repudiate the more superficial and Arminian views, which have prevailed in the Lutheran Church from the first, and to incline towards those higher points of Calvinism, which have excited so much reproach and obloquy. In proof of this, we need only to cite the following passage from Tholuck, in reference to the republication of Calvin's Commentaries.--"We believe that even that part of Calvin's Commentaries in which his stern view of Predestination occurs, will do more good than hurt. As one extreme often serves to restrain and limit the other, so we think it will turn out here. A profound truth, lies at the foundation of Calvinism; and that very aspect of the divine being and of human nature, which our age is most inclined to overlook, is made prominent in this system. If it be so, that our age has been accustomed to set up man with numberless claims on God, as a Prometheus, in opposition to the Supreme Being, and that this mode of thinking has in any degree affected the views of evangelical theologians; it may be, that the inexorable severity with which Calvin takes every thing from man, and gives every thing to God, will exert a salutary influence upon many; while the strong current of the age, diametrically opposed as it is, to this mode of thinking, may prove a sufficient security against the Cal