Olympus, became nothing more than the pure æther which extends over our heads; Juno was discovered to be the earth; and the monster Saturn, who was guilty of the destruction of his own children, was identified at last as the personified representative of Time, which indeed looks both forwards and backwards, and crumbles all things into nothing.

After the conquest of Alexander, the Jews became mingled in a very considerable degree with the Greeks. One of his successors, Ptolemy Lagus, carried at one time an hundred thousand of them into Egypt, and settled them in Alexandria, a city in the main, peopled by the Greeks. Here the Jewish institutions and histories were made the subject of ridicule, but the Greeks had set them an example; and the Jews, in order to shield themselves, determined to follow it, and allegorized the Bible, as the Greeks had allegorized Homer. This seems to have been the origin of the allegorical interpretation of the Bible, which has prevailed more or less to the present day.

We are unable at present to enter into a minute investigation of this method of interpretation, and would only refer our readers to a work upon this subject, entitled, Commentatio de principiis et causis Interpretationis Philoniana allegorica,' written by professor H. Planck, of Göttingen. In this treatise, the distinction between allegories and allegorical interpretation, the education and intellectual character of Philo, the grounds of his interpretation, the influence of the Greeks, and other points involved, are discussed in a learned and philosophical

manner.

In the next generation, we find in the writings of the apostolical fathers, a few instances of the allegorical interpretation. An example may be found in the epistle of Barnabas, if indeed it be not thought to approach too near to the strange inventions of the cabbalistic rabbins. Certainly we should be a little surprised at this day to find the doctrine of the atonement taught in the rite of the circumcision, as first performed in the family of Abraham, but such we must suppose to be the fact, if we adopt the exposition of the ingenious father. The number circumcised, we are informed, was three hundred and eighteen. In Greek eta stands for eight, iota for ten, and tau for three hundred. Here, says Barnabas, we have IH, the two first letters of the name of Jesus, (Incovs,) and the letter T, which is a cross; an ample testimony, in the opinion of the

writer to the crucifixion of the Saviour, and a proof that this part of the Old Testament at least is an allegory, and that we are to search in it for a deeper and sublimer sense.

This is a single instance, and whatever others there may be, during the whole time from the days of Philo to those of Origen, a period of about two hundred and fifty years, may be found collected together in the work of D. J. G. Rosenmüller, professor at Leipsic, entitled, Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum inde ab Apostolorum ætate usque ad Originem.'

From the time of Origen,' says professor Stuart, who converted into allegory the account of the creation of the world, the creation and fall of man, and multitudes of other simple facts related in the Bible, down to the Jesuit, who makes the account of the creation of the greater light to rule the day to mean the pope, and the creation of the lesser light and the stars to mean the subjection of kings and princes to the pope, there have been multitudes in and out of the catholic church, who have pursued the same path. The most sacred doctrines of religion have often been defended and assailed by arguments of equal validity, and of the same nature with the exposition of the Jesuit just mentioned. The spirit, which prompts to this, may in some cases be commendable, but as it is a mere business of fancy, connected with no principles of philology, and supported by no reasons, drawn from the nature of language, so it is, for the most part, not only worthless, but dangerous. And of what possible use in the end can a principle be, which can prove the most important doctrine, either of Judaism or Christianity, as well from the first verse of the first chapter of Chronicles, as from any part of the Bible? Or rather of what use can the Bible be, if it be interpreted on such principles?"

During that night of the human mind, which has been denominated the dark ages, although it must be admitted, that the disposition still continued to make the scriptures speak in allegories, it would be nearer the truth to say, that the scriptures themselves, as well as all rational interpretation of them, had fallen into general oblivion. The study of the scriptures revived in the protestant church after the reformation, yet so late as the year seventeen hundred, we find a system promulgated, defended and embraced, which can vie with the cabbalistic for conceit, and with the allegorical for mysticism. We allude now to the interpretation of Cocceius, formerly professor of theology at Leyden; a man, who was acknowledged learned, especially in the Hebrew and the Greek. It is the New Series, No. 19.

50

great prerogative of the Cocceian interpretation, to discover worlds of meaning, while it is given to others to elicit only an ordinary share. Thus, according to the faith of Cocceius and his followers, the story of the creation of the world is a history of the church, and the seven days of the divine operations are the seven great periods of the earthly pilgrimage of our holy religion. The same mighty range of history is contained in the difficult book of Canticles, and is repeated, as was very natural, in the seven seals of the apocalypse.

The younger Turretin, in his book 'De Sacræ Scripturæ Interpretatione,' says, that there was a certain man in Germany, a follower of Cocceius, and a scholar withal, who had lately published a treatise, entitled, Mysterium Jesu revelatum, seu spiritus Prophetiæ.' In this book, the writer gives the following exposition of the war, made by Abraham against certain kings, of which we find an account in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis. The king Chedorlaomer represents those who seek for justification by works, because according to this writer's system of etymology, Chedorlaomer means one, who heads an army for the sake of gain. By the king of Sodom is meant antichrist; by Lot, the faithful who are living in the abodes of antichrist; by Abraham, the reformers; by Melchisedek, Christ; and by the war, in which Abraham conquered Chedorlaomer and his allies, is meant the contest which was agitated about the time of the Reformation, respecting grace and the merit of works. Of a kindred character is his exposition of the twenty eighth chapter of Exodus. And yet the system of Cocceius found a multitude of followers, and was defended with a great deal of zeal at least, if not with judgment and ingenuity. As a proof of its popularity, it will be sufficient to refer to the controversy which commenced in 1707. In this year, a treatise was published by Peter Joncourt, French preacher in the Walloon church at the Hague, with the following title; Entretiens sur les differentes methodes d'expliquer l'Ecriture et de precher de ceux qu'on appelle Cocceiens et Vöetiens, dans les Provinces unies' &c. Joncourt, says Rosenmüller, shows in his examination of the opinions alluded to in the title just quoted, that they have as little foundation as the interpretations of the Jewish midrashes, and if we reject the latter, to be consistent with ourselves, we must reject the former. This severe attack awoke the slumbering ire of the Cocceians, and was soon answered in a book

by Solomon von Fil, also a professor of theology, entitled, Antidotum, viperinis morsibus P. Joncourt oppositum.' Joncourt placed himself in the attitude of defence, and replied in a work published at Amsterdam in 1708. This was answered. in a book entitled, Le chef des moquers demasqué par Neophile l'Athelet, à la Haye, 1708.' The Walloon synod, who had observed the extent and indications of the storm, interfered by way of attacking poor Joncourt, and drew from him a confession. But this did not altogether satisfy the Cocceians, who, having taken up their weapons, were loath to give over the application of them, and belabored him, probably by way of purgation, after he was, in one sense, dead. Such was the violence of contention respecting this famous system. We hope that our readers will not be disposed to consider these remarks as without an object, or as improperly introduced here. They have immediate reference to the subject of the book, placed at the head of this article, and will leave the impression, we trust, of the necessity of a work, plain and rational, convincing in its rules and principles, on the science of biblical interpretation.

We consider it, therefore, a matter of interest and of good promise, to see the Hermeneutica of Ernesti, in a vernacular dress, and made accessible to all classes of readers among us. Ernesti well understood the nature of language, and whether regarded as a mere scholar, or as a man of candor and of wide and rational views, he appears to have been peculiarly fitted for the execution of the work, of which professor Stuart has given us a translation. The original work itself, entitled Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti, was published by Ernesti at Leipsic, in the year 1761. Soon after appeared a notice of the work from the author, in the Theological Magazine, entitled Neue Theologische Bibliothek, of which he was editor. In this critical notice, Ernesti complains,

That in the manuals of interpretation, which had preceded his, there had prevailed a great want of system. Every thing is denominated in them Rules of Interpretation, although they are mere historical remarks on the use of words, and whatever else in them may have more the appearance of rules or principles, is destitute of proof. The right method, says he, is this; observations must be made, which go to develop the principles of language generally, especially of the language in which the book to be interpreted is written.

From these observations or facts, rules must be deduced, and

any other rules than those formed in this way are fallacious. The rules should be in form, and should be so definite and clearly expressed, that the application of them may be easy and certain. Since every book has something peculiar in it, those peculiarities should be noticed, as far as they can have any bearing on its interpretation. With such views, I have drawn up my introduction to the interpretation of the New Testament."

Ernesti made use of the inductive method, a method which we conceive to be as correct in interpretation, as in morals or in intellectual and natural philosophy. He takes language as it is, the medium of communication from mind to mind, and from the nature of language, shows us at once what course is to be pursued in ascertaining its meaning.

The work of Ernesti, in passing through the hands of its translator, has undergone some alterations; some things have been omitted; notes have been added where the subject appeared to need further elucidation; and copious extracts are given from Morus, the able commentator on Ernesti, as likewise from Keil's Elementa Hermeneutices, and Beck's Monogrammata.

As regards the execution of the translation, we have neither time nor disposition to go into minute verbal criticisms, and will leave the translator to speak for himself. 'Such is the excessive difficulty,' says he, of putting an English costume upon Ernesti, that I cannot flatter myself that the book does not contain many latinisms, which may be unpleasant to a reader, who is not acquainted with the original. Quod potui feci. Without absolutely abandoning the idea of being a translator and making a new book, I could not in general well do more than I have done.' We may add, that a defective sentence, admitting there are such in this translation, is much more excusable in a difficult technical work of this kind, than in a poem or essay, where so much of the merit is expected from the perfection of the style.

There are many subjects introduced into this work, which, were it consistent with our limits, we would gladly examine at some length. As a point, however, of peculiar interest to a respectable portion of young scholars, we would occupy a few moments in a consideration of the dialect of the New Testament, a subject which is briefly discussed in the fourth chapter of the second part. If we explain the New Testament as we would a book written in common Greek, we must necessarily