tures, the case becomes different, and the great body of plain and sober people will revolt. In making these observations, of the nature and probable consequences of that exegesis, which explains away the deity of Christ, I cannot think that I am building castles in the air, to amuse my own imagination. For ten years past, I have been called, every week, to duties which necessitated me to be conversant with the history of interpretation, as it has appeared in Germany; a country, which, in half a century, has produced more works on criticism and sacred literature, than the world besides. About fifty years since, Semler, Professor of Divinity at Halle, began to lecture and publish on the subject of interpretation, in a manner that excited the attention of the whole German empire. The grand principle by which he explained away whatever he did not think proper to believe, was that which has been called accommodation. He maintained that the apostles and the Saviour often admitted representations and doctrines into their instructions, which were calculated merely for the purpose of persuading the Jews, being accommodated to their prejudices; but which were not intended to be а real directory of sentiment. In this way, whatever was inconsistent with his own views, he called accommodation; and thus, at once, expunged it from the list of Christian doctrines." "The more recent method of exegesis, however, in Germany, has been to solve all the miraculous facts related in the Bible, by considerations which are affirmed to be drawn from the idiom and ignorance of antiquity in general, and in particular of the sacred writers themselves. Thus with

6

Eichorn, the account of the creation and fall of man, is merely a poetical, philosophical speculation of some ingenious person, on the origin of the world and of evil. So, in regard to the offering up of Isaac by Abraham, he says, 'The Godhead could not have required of Abraham so horrible a crime; and there can be no justification, palliation or excuse, for this pretended command of the divinity.' He then explains it. Abraham dreamed that he must offer up Isaac, and according to the superstition of the times, regarded it as a divine admonition. He prepared to execute the mandate which his dream had conveyed to him. A lucky accident (probably the rustling of a ram who was entangled in the bushes) hindered it; and this, according to ancient idiom, was also the voice of the divinity.' The same writer represents the history of the Mosaic legislation, at Mount Sinai, in a curious manner. Moses ascended to the top of Sinai, and built a fire there, (how he found wood on this barren rock, or raised it to the top, Eichorn does not tell us,) a fire consecrated to the worship of God, before which he prayed. Here, an unex

pected and tremendous thunder storm occurred. He seized the occasion to proclaim the laws which he had composed in his retirement, as the statutes of Jehovah; leading the people to believe that Jehovah had conversed with him. Not that he was a deceiver, but he really believed that the occurrence of such a thunder storm was a sufficient proof of the fact that Jehovah had spoken to him, or sanctioned the work in which he had been engaged. The prophecies of the Old Testament, are, according to him, patriotic wishes,

expressed with all the fire and elegance of poetry, for the future prosperity, and a future deliverer of the Jewish nation. In like manner, C. F. Ammon, Professor of Theology at Erlangen, tells us, in respect to the miracle of Christ's walking on the water, that, 'to walk on the sea, is not to stand on the waves, as on the solid ground, as Jerome dreams, but to walk through the waves so far as the shoals reached, and then to swim.' Thiess, in his commentary on the Acts, explains the miraculous effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, (Acts ii.) in the following manner: It is not uncommon,' says he, in those countries, for a violent gust of wind to strike on a particular spot or house; such a gust is commonly accompanied by the electric fluid; and the sparks of this are scattered all around. These float about the chamber, become apparent, and light upon the disciples. They kindle into enthusiasm at this, and believe the promise of their Master is now to be performed. This enthusiasm, spectators assemble to witness; and instead of preaching as before, in Hebrew, each one uses his own native tongue, to proclaim his feelings.' The case of Ananias, falling down dead, is thus represented by the same writer: Ananias fell down terrified; but probably he was carried out and buried while still alive.' Heinrichs, however, who produces this comment of Thiess, relates another mode of explaining the occurrence in question, viz., that Peter stabbed Ananias; which,' says Heinrichs, does not at all disagree with the vehement and easily exasperated temper of Peter.' Numerous systems of Hermeneutics, i. e., the art of Interpre

་

tation, have been written and published in Ger many, on this plan. Meyer, in a very labored system of Hermeneutics of the Old Testament, in two large octavos, has a body of rules, by which everything miraculous is to be explained away. He concedes that there is the same objection to admitting any one miracle, as to admitting all. He therefore rejects the whole.

"At present, the leading German critics (rejecting accommodation, and casting off all ideas of the divine origin of the Scriptures) are disputing with great zeal, the questions, whether a miracle be possible? Whether God and nature are one and the same ?-(Schelling, a divine, is at the head of a great party, which maintains that they are the same)-and whether the Jews ever expected any Messiah? Some time ago, many of their critics maintained, that no Messiah was predicted in the Old Testament; but now, they question even whether the Jews had any expectation of one. It would seem, now, that they have come nearly to the end of questions on theology."

We have made these long extracts from Professor Stuart, because his candor is a guaranty for the accuracy of the remarks which he has made on the subject of Neology, because he is well acquainted with writers of this school,-because we believe he has never been considered a fanatic. He says of these writers, (page 152,) "The person, who reads their works, will see what the spirit of doubt and unbelief can do, in respect to the Book of God, and where it will carry the men who entertain it. It is indeed a most affecting and awful lesson. But is there no

reason to fear that we are to learn it by sad experience?"

Time has answered the professor's question. Recent publications show that the neologic system of interpretation, which he so forcibly condemned in the year 1819, has gained a currency in our land, and this, among divines who exercise a powerful influence on the opinions of the church. But we will not anticipate the proofs of this fact.

When the neologists had, as they thought, demolished the confidence hitherto reposed in the inspiration of the biblical writers, and left men to decide by their own acumen, what portions of the Scriptures were worthy of regard, and to cast away those which were at variance with their philosophic or religious standards, their task was by no means ended. The unholy propensities of their hearts were still active, and the cry of those hearts, like that of the disobedient Jews, still was, "Cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us." Although the Bible was regarded merely as a historical document, it presented too many proofs of the moral government of God,-too much of his interference and control over the conduct and destinies of men,-not to offend those who wished "to walk after the sight of their own eyes." Another effort must be made. It was made with a boldness which astonished the reflecting portion of mankind. The assertion was hazarded, that the books of the canon had been grossly corrupted. De Wette maintained that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch; that it was much later than the age in which he lived; and the following assertion was offered as a proof: "The