contributed largely to whatever good or evil has flowed to the world from that tremendous ecclesiastical corporation.

To her system of pious fraud, and her unexampled and bloody persecutions even Guizot ascribes no good influence. In these respects therefore tremendous evils, unmixed with good, can be directly traced to Leo.

On the whole his efforts to vindicate the true doctrine of the incarnation of Christ, may be justly regarded as of all his acts least injurious in his own age, and as most permanently beneficial to the interests of mankind.

ARTICLE II.

THE PROVINCE OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.

By Rev. MASON GROSVENOR, Springfield, Mass.

In a review of Prof. Finney's Systematic Theology in a recent number of one of our leading Theological Reviews', this subject is discussed at considerable length. Dissenting from the views therein expressed, and believing that the subject is intimately related to sound theology, we venture on some remarks in regard to it. This writer censures Mr. Finney for giving philosophy the lead in his investigations. He thinks that in so doing he greatly disregards the authority of the Bible. We are not disposed to deny that Mr. F's. assertions in regard to the validity of the deductions of reason, and, perhaps his confidence in them are open to censure. Our remarks however will have no reference to the errors of Mr. Finney, but to the opinions of the reviewer upon Philosophy as it stands related to Revelation. His opinion is that the doctrines and facts of the Bible must first be learned without allowing our philosophy to influence or control this investigation. He says (p. 240;)" The true and Christian method is to begin with the doctrines (that is of the Bible) and let them determine our philosophy, and not to begin with our philosophy and allow it to give law to the doctrines." And in accordance with this principle he remarks (p. 242;) "And we confess that when we see a system of theology beginning with moral government we take it for granted that the Bible is to be allowed only a very humble part in its construction." From these remarks and others which might be quoted, it is evident that the reviewer supposes that the true principles of interpreting the Bible do not require any previous correct philosophical views of the things of which it treats,-that a man can

Biblical Repertory, Princeton, April, 1847.

a rive at a full understanding of revealed truth, let his philosophy be what it may, or whether he has any or not. For, however destitute he may be of philosophy or erroneous in his philosophical views, he must not begin with philosophy to obtain correct views in theology. The only "true and Christian method is to begin with the doctrines of Revelation," for they are so plainly stated that he will be likely to understand them whatever may be his philosophy. And if, in the progress of his inquiries, the doctrines of the Bible, thus interpreted, conflict with the philosophical conclusions to which his own understanding would lead him (and he anticipates they may) then the former must be assumed to be true and as he says "must determine our philosophy." Or as he says (p. 241,) such a man "will be constrained to make his philosophy agree with his theology." And thus the conclusions of philosophy must be forced to yield; not because they are proved to be false; but simply because they conflict with his interpretation of the doctrines of the Bible. The opposite method requires that every search after revealed truth should begin with an accurate knowledge, so far as practicable, of those elementary things treated in the Bible and be modified and controlled by it, which is true philosophy. Thus the conclusions on both these fields of investigation, when legitimately obtained will be harinonious. We shall offer some reasons for the correctness of the latter method and for the incorrectness of the former.

Our first reason for adopting this method is, that Natare is an elementary book of truth, written by the hand of God. Many persons seem to regard philosophy as some profane work, necessarily opposed to God and to revealed truth; as if it originated with devils, or with men made like them, which if a man reads or studies at all, he must be erroneous on all Divine and sacred subjects, if not corrupt in character. We are fully aware that there are, and have been systems, called philosophical systems, which are dangerous, full of error, opposed to God and to truth; and which if they did not originate with devils, originated with men of near kindred to them. But what have these false systems to do with true Christian philosophy? Is all philosophy necessarily erroneous and dangerous because they are? The reviewer's objections are not directed against the false and heathenish systems, but against true philosophy studied by a Christian theologian as necessary to a full and correct investigation of revealed truth. As such it is the study of Nature-this elementary work of God -no less a book of truth than revelation itself. Nature is only the substantial forms of idealities. Here the ideals which eternally existed in the mind of the Deity are put into actual existence, so that they can be cognized as having reality. Nature is thus the embodiment of truth written by the finger of God for man to study. There are no things in the Bible. It is a description of

things by the use of the signs of ideas; ideas of a particular class, and of a particular combination of them. No revelation therefore could be given until abstract ideas had received distinct forms in actual existences, and the beings to whom it was to be made had become somewhat familiar with these forms, and learned to designate them by language. These ideas, of which the words in the Bible are the signs, either simple or complex, are the elements of which the Bible is composed, and which are combined in its doctrines and duties. And these elementary ideas are all first found written in the book of Nature, in substantial existences. Nature is therefore the more ancient work of God than Revelation, and is elementary to it. From this older book then must all the elementary ideas of the Bible be first learned. This learning is Philosophy. The lesson superficially learned is a superficial philosophy; erroneously learned, it is a false philosophy; but correctly learned, it is a true and divine philosophy. And the teachings of this book, thus correctly obtained, can never conflict with truth written in the book of Revelation. Indeed, how can the Bible be correctly interpreted and understood at all without a correct philosophy, a knowledge of this elementary book? The words of the Bible are mere signs of ideas. But ideas must have objective reality in things. If we have no knowledge of these things, we can have no ideas of them, and having no ideas of these things, we can attach none to the language of the Bible. It is to us an unmeaning book. And if our ideas of things are imperfect or erroneous, then necessarily our ideas of the teachings of the Bible must be also imperfect or erroneous. A lesson erroneously learned in this book of Nature-this elementary work of God on subjects involved in the teachings of the Bible-will as certainly mislead the interpreter, as erroneous teaching in the elements of mathematics will mislead the astronomer or the natural philosopher. Is that then an enlightened reverence for the Divine authority of the Bible, which holds a man back from carefully and prayerfully reading this elementary work of God, and plunges him, while ignorant of it, into those depths of revealed truth which he is unprepared to fathom, and then leads him to believe that his knowledge of Revelation, thus imperfectly obtained, is so unerring that it must control and determine all the teachings of philosophy? This well nigh equals that popish reverence which cannot give the Bible to the common people lest their ignorance should pervert it. On the contrary, by our method of interpretation, we manifest the highest regard for the doctrines of the Bible, by approaching them in the only legitimate way of arriving at a thorough understanding of them; and when they are thus reached, a broad foundation is laid for them to rest securely upon, so that they will not be easily shaken.

Our method does not necessarily conflict with the true idea

expressed in the declaration that the "Bible is a plain book." It is so plain, that all its truths essential to a man's salvation may be understood by the most common mind. Indeed, its statements of philosophical truths, so far as it makes them, are in terms of plain common sense philosophy, which is true philosophy. And the common mind is the best philosopher so far as that mind goes, seldom committing errors in philosophy. It requires the mystic or the scholastic to introduce philosophical error and to pervert truth: the man who seeks for something profound, and in his selfish pride attempts to fathom the entire depths of truth before he is prepared, and without thorough examination throws off theories which involve him and others in midnight darkness. But though the Bible is a plain book, who will deny that it contains some things hard to be understood? Or that an entire system of theology coming from God, the Infinite Mind, will necessarily be difficult fully to understand and to harmonize? Will not the Christian scholar better understand and develop this Divine system than the unlearned man? A scholar is needed to read the original languages of the Bible-to understand and develop the customs and laws of eastern nations, and by the light of this kind of learning to give us clearer and more extended views than it was possible for the unaided common mind ever to obtain. But is this all the learning that is important? May not the true and Christian scholar in philosophy also better interpret this Divine system than he who has not studied these works of nature? What can pervert the understanding of any man of sense so much as to induce him to deny the truth of this proposition? What can array him in opposition to true philosophy as an important aid in the interpretation of Scripture doctrine, unless it be a wedded attachment to some theological notions with which that philosophy conflicts?

Our second reason for adopting this method is, that the true principles of the interpretation of the Bible require it. No principle is more important or of more universal application than that every book should be interpreted according to the known nature of the things ascribed in it. The Bible was written in the languages of the East. It necessarily employs terms expressive of the customs, laws, government and character peculiar to eastern nations. On these things many of its illustrations are founded. Of these things it treats. And no reasonable man will deny that a knowledge of these customs, laws and government is important, and even necessary, as a preliminary acquisition to a full and correct interpretation of the Scriptures. And on what principle is a knowledge of these things deemed necessary, except that every book must be interpreted according to the known nature of the things of which it treats?

But the Bible treats of other things; of the works of God, the

heavens, the earth, of mind, soul, spirit, moral action, moral obligation, moral government, etc., etc. It does not undertake to teach these things philosophically; but upon a correct knowledge of them, which it pre-supposes all may obtain, it bases duties and doctrines. And if revelation may be fully interpreted without a thorough knowledge of these things of which it so extensively treats, why not without a knowledge of the customs, laws and government of eastern nations? Why apply this principle of interpretation in the one case and reject it in the other? Who but the reviewer has a mind able to see how it gives to the Bible a more humble part in the construction of a system of theology to begin with moral government, than it does to begin with the laws and governments of the East?

Let a man apply himself to the interpretation of the passage, "God is a spirit.' Who can have any idea of God from this passage unless he first obtain an idea of spirit? And how shall he obtain this idea? By the teachings of Revelation? But where is the original idea of spirit developed and taught in the Scriptures? They presuppose that this idea is and must be known. separate from their teachings. And where does it originate? Is it found in the impressions of the material world given through the senses? Who then can know any distinction between matter and spirit? It is by the intuitive cognitions of our own minds that the idea of spirit is first given. It is thus common to all. But it may be more fully, correctly or erroneously developed by attention and reflection. And all correct knowledge acquired thus is philosophical knowledge. And is it then of no importance in the interpretation of this passage that we previously possess correct ideas of spirit? Will false notions on this subject, or none at all, answer as well as correct ones in aiding us in its interpretation? But first to obtain correct ideas of spirit is beginning with philosophy-with the knowledge of the nature of a moral being-the formation of moral government, and of course allows the Bible only a humble part. The same argument is equally applicable to those passages which describe the feelings, purposes and actions of God, the Infinite Spirit.

But let us hear the opinion of the reviewer on other philosophical subjects referred to in revelation. He says (page 241:) "There is a view of free agency and of the grounds and extent of moral obligation, which is perfectly compatible with the doctrines of original sin, efficacious grace and divine sovereignty, and there is another view of those subjects as obviously incompatible with those doctrines. There are two courses which a theologian may adopt. He may turn to the scriptures and ascertain whether those doctrines are really taught therein. If satisfied on that point and especially if he experience through the teachings of the Holy Spirit, their power on his own heart, if they become to him matters not