doctrine are enumerated above, (p. 21.) An able refutation of Semler's Theory, may be found in Storr's Tract on the historical sense, contained in the first volume of his Opuscula. This Tract has been translated and published in this country by Mr. Gibbs.

"If

The importance of this subject is very evident. It must be perceived that if the principle contended for be admitted, every one will be at liberty to assert, that any doctrine he may see fit to object to, is a mere accommodation to Jewish opinion. It is in this way that the existence. and agency of Satan, the reality of demoniacal possessions, the expiatory character of Christ's sufferings, and many other important doctrines are explained away. Every individual's opinions, or what he calls his reason, is made the supreme judge on matters of religion. That this is really the case, will appear from the slightest inspection of the criteria which Van Hemert, one of the most systematic advocates of the doctrine, lays down to determine when, and how far this accommodation is to be admitted. any thing be taught which is contrary to reason, it is an accommodation, as for example, that Satan entered into any one. If there be a contradiction between two passages, as when it is said in one passage, if a sinner repent of his sins, they shall no more be remembered; in another, that we are saved by Christ's death as an offering, that without shedding of blood there is no remission; we are to ask which is most accordant with reason, and consider the passage which is least so, an accommodation, and in this instance, it is the offering and the blood which are an accommodation to the notions of the Jews." The same supremacy of the previous and independent opinions of the author, above the SS. is evident through the work, and is indeed essential to the doctrine.

It may be presumed, that those who are interested in the history of the church, and especially in that department of its history which relates to christian doctrines,

must be desirous 'of knowing something of a controversy which has had so much influence. But it is not merely as a matter of history, that this subject calls for the attention of the American student. It is evident that this doctrine is only a modification of the theory, which determines the sense of SS., by deciding what is, or is not reasonable; and which has as effectually excluded the doctrines of the Deity of Christ, and his atonement from the SS., because, they were deemed inconsistent with reason, as could have been done by the most skilful advocate for historical interpretation. It is in this view a matter of practical importance, that we understand the different forms under which the same general principle is presented; and be prepared to show how inconsistent this whole system under all its modifications, is, with that strict and only legitimate method of interpretation, for which our author is so strenuous an advocate.

C. CHS. TITTMANN,

ON

Historical Enterpretation.

The continuation and completion of those Dissertations upon the Gospel according to John, of which so much as relates to the first four chapters, was published by us thirteen years ago, has been a matter of long and frequent thought. To this labour we have not only been excited by the friends and patrons of Biblical Interpretation, but also allured by the daily study, and great admiration of the Sacred Volume. From early youth the perusal of the Scriptures has been in an eminent degree delightful; in their interpretation, we have spent the chief and the sweetest portion of life; and from experience can declare, that these pursuits can cherish youth, and sooth old age; give new ornament to prosperity, and afford a refuge and a solace amid the ills of life. And amongst all the Sacred Writings, this work of John has, in a special manner, gained our affection, and holds in our estimation an eminent place in the Inspired Volume. In this book, if any where, is Christ to be found; here we do not merely see him acting, but we hear him speaking, and in almost every instance, we may say, speaking of himself, his Father, and his decrees and purposes with respect to man's salvation. Whoever he be that would become acquainted with Jesus, and learn what and how great was his character, let him learn of John, let him peruse this book. And we confess, that an intention of making public a complete commenta

ry upon the Gospel by John, was confirmed by observing so many things, from so many different hands, at the present time, written as comments upon this work, and yet most opposite, not only to the meaning of the Evangelist, and of Jesus himself, and to evangelical truth, but even to all historical verity, and thus in a high degree injurious to our glorious Master; and further, by the hope and earnest desire of adding something by means of which, the excellence of this Gospel, and the majesty of our Lord Jesus, and the grandeur of his work of salvation, might be vindicated from the aspersions of adversaries; as well as that the meaning of the Gospel might be rendered more clear, and the faith of those who read confirmed.

In the interpretation of the Scriptures we have pursued, and shall ever pursue that mode, which those who have been most eminent in the criticism of classic authors, as well as of the Sacred Volume, and who have been most skilled in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin literature, have ever esteemed the only true and legitimate method of interpretation, and above all others, worthy of a man of letters; I speak of that which is denominated the grammatical mode of interpretation, which proposes, by the aid of extensive literary attainments, to investigate the precise sense of the words, by means of attending to the usus loquendi and other grammatical points, and when this sense has been determined, to express it in accordance with the idiom of any language, and confirming this sense by the fixed principles of grammar, to arrive, through the precise meaning of words, to the knowledge of things themselves.

Some may perhaps be disposed to denominate this the Historical Method, and to this the learned interpreter will not object. The most ancient interpreters, indeed, made use of this appellation, or, at least, spoke in high commendation of the Historical sense of the Scriptures; yet it must be borne in mind that by this they did not mean to convey the idea that there was a grammatical in

R

terpretation differing from the historical, or as they expressed themselves, that the literal sense was one, and the historical another, but rather to distinguish the historical sense from that which was spiritual, moral, and mystical, and which the interpreters of those days thought they could discover in the Scriptures; they therefore made use of the denominations Grammatical and Historical as synonymous. And in this they were doubtless correct; for Grammatical interpretation is for the most part Historical, inasmuch as it depends for its correctness upon the usus loquendi, which is a matter of history, and is deduced from the observations of Grammarians upon the significa tion of words and phrases, teaching what is the import of every expression, at every different period, in every science, with each particular author and nation, and in each specific connexion or passage; all which are historical facts, which history only can teach us. Those, then, who assert that grammatical interpretation only is the true and legitimate method, are by no means to be understood as saying that the knowledge of historical facts is, in no instance, to be introduced as an auxiliary to interpretation. For who ever supposed that the Greek and Latin classics could be understood and explained without an extensive acquaintance with history? Indeed it is common even for the grammatical interpreter to have recourse occasionally to facts, that he may learn the true power and import of words and phrases; and this is necessary in doctrinal as well as historical discourses. That the latter must be explained historically, to the utter rejection of the mystical and allegorical interpretation, cannot admit of a doubt; in consequence of which, MoRUs, who is equally eminent in sacred and profane literature, has given to both the appellation of Historical, for the purpose of distinguishing them from the allegorical and mystic sense, in imitation of ancient interpreters. As it regards doctrinal passages, it has been denied by none, and indeed has received the