6

apology worth giving or receiving, since the substitution of the words Philology and History,' for Hebrew and Greek, will leave the point of our remark as sharp as before: viz., that in theory they despise, but in practice seek to use, these things. An unfortunate misprint of unlawful' for lawful (p. 578, 1. 15), and the popular phrase Latin and Greek,' used for ancient literature, made our meaning yet more indistinct. Let us beg, at the end of this long article, for yet a little more patience, while we develop the meaning and result of the doctrine taught by the Brethren, that to study the bare languages of Scripture is right for a Christian, but to cultivate the mind is wrong.

We must explain what, in our last quotation from the Brother, is 'religious worldliness;' and it may illustrate to him what we meant by saying that they judge the Scriptures by other than the common laws of grammar;-words which he does not understand. We are used to speak of the religious world, or the Christian world, or the Protestant world, as freely as of the musical world or the mineral world; and judged by common grammar, all are equally good. But the Brother decides that the Christian world, is a contradiction; being, it seems, equivalent to worldly Christians! He three times attacks us about it, as in the note, p. 515: There is "nothing self-contradictory in the expression religious world, for man is naturally religious; but that of Christian world is sadly 'anomalous, and like popular phrases, fearfully expressive of the 'existing state of things. Surely it was never intended that the terms Christian and world should be named together, save in the way of contrast, or meet together save in the way of conflict. And yet they are now found joined together in all seeming har'mony.'

6

6

We are afraid to call this a specimen of divine grammar,' for it really might be mistaken for profanity. But is it not miserable to see religious feeling degenerate into this mawkish sensibility about words and syllables, with such a loss of the common powers of reasoning, in one who has not been ill educated? It is hard to predict from what absurdities in Biblical criticism a person would shrink, who has so perverted his faculties as to expound the Christian world to mean worldly Christians. To such a mind, the knowledge of the mere languages, Greek and Hebrew, is an ignis fatuus, if indeed* this is a specimen of other criticisms. But who need doubt that their critical principles

* It may seem to be a morceau much valued in their school; for in turning the pages of the Christian Witness we have met the same idea more than once. Thus, vol. i. p. 350, Note, where somebody is rebuked for wishing universities to be a preparation and introduction to the world. We should refer to John xvii. 15, but text-quoting between us and the brethren is useless.

must be other than common, when this Brother reckons Philology among the parts of worldliness' to be avoided by Christians? We have not room to enlarge on this absurdity. But surely, all who know anything of antiquity, know that to appreciate the force and spirit of an ancient tongue, far more is needed than the bare letter which a dictionary can afford. What we intended to ascribe to the Brethren is this; a superstitious feeling concerning the dialect of the Scriptures, as though the words of the Holy Ghost,' were not also human words subject to the same laws as those of common men: hence they have a horror of all explanation depending on figures of speech,* however convincing may be the proof at hand, that this is the real interpretation; and when they compare Scripture with Scripture to find the force of words, it is less because the dialect happens to be the same in the books compared, than to ascertain how the Holy Ghost' employs terms. Nay, they appear to dread the study of common Greek, as though it would mislead them as to the SS. We believe this to be a most hurtful error, tending to promote superstition with some, infidelity with others; and destroying in numberless cases the true sense of the sacred volume.

This Brother complains that we do not rest our opposition to them on texts of Scripture. His complaint touches the heart of the subject, and assumes that which we are strenuously denying; viz. that all knowledge available or useful to a Christian is contained in the Scripture. What a confusion of mind it implies, to imagine that the laws of interpretation can be dictated by the Scripture, when every text quoted on the subject, needs to be itself interpreted before it can be used! Our main controversy with these Brethren is concerning laws of interpretation, laws of argument and evidence; we contend that they have heated imaginations, and are deficient in sound sense. We understand this Brother's texts very differently from him, and our controversy can never be thus settled. The publication of the letter of Scripture is a vast blessing, because so much holy and most important truth is on the surface; about which there is little question among Christians. But three centuries in this country have fully demonstrated the falsehood of the old maxim, Bonus textuarius bonus theologus. A MIND to interpret the texts is

*The Brother does not object to our statement, that they hold that our Lord's maxims must not be modified by considering their Hebrew idiom. We might as well say, that English is to be interpreted by the laws of gram'mar, without reference to the English idiom.'

The Englishman's Greek Concordance, favourably noticed in our November Number, is executed by the Brethren. We did not choose there to stir the question, but barely glanced at it.

VOL. VII.

H

first essential, and no text-quoting will separate man from his intellect, or the spiritual from the natural understanding. That there may be life in the letter, we need not only to have our religious feelings quickened, but also our mental faculties soundly developed. Yet these Brethren virtually teach, that the weaker a man's perceptive and argumentative powers, the more likely is he to attain divine truth.

6

6

Since this Brother does not object to our statement that they regard history as a worldly' study, we presume that he includes it in the et cætera. Yet he (as they) has no objection to try his hand at historical argument, in the following words, p. 503, note: IT IS NOTORIOUS that mere literature has never done anything but mischief in the church, removing men from the simplicity that is in Christ. As literature advanced and prevailed, the 'truth became darkened, diluted, and mixed with pernicious 'errors, until at length it was well nigh extinguished. To the learned we may trace almost every heresy and false doctrine which has at any time plagued or desolated the church; and if we desire 'to see infidelity raging under the Christian name, we must turn our eyes to the neologians of Germany, who are admittedly in 'philology, mere criticism and literature, facile principes. And "yet the religionists, especially the dissenters, of these countries, have failed to take warning from this.' Mere' literature, is doubtless a double-edged weapon, and so is mere' criticism: each may be mere counterfeits. But we do not hesitate to assert, that the facts of history inculcate the very opposite lesson to that which this extract is designed to convey. So far from it being true that the departure of the early church from the faith is chargeable on literature,' in any sense which that word now bears, it may be difficult to suggest any accessible human means which would have more efficiently resisted that sad declension, than the general study of Cicero, Xenophon, Tacitus, and other sober classical authors, by Christians of the second and third century. The disease of the church was fanaticism, credulity, and superstition; an obscuration of the primary notions of morals, and a loss of common sense. The Scriptures were in the hands of all, but none could use them aright. It is most certain, that the decline of literature and sound judgment in the age at large, went hand in hand with the decline of true religion in the church. Farther, the spread of Latin (heathen) literature in Europe, was the dawn of religious improvement in the middle ages; while the introduction of Greek (heathen) literature was the herald of the Reformation. Since then, if we ask why it is

It is believed that the Brother is by no means well-informed, nor is an adequate judge, concerning the progress of the German mind: but it is too great and arduous a subject here to touch.

that we discern many truths more clearly than our fathers; why we do not believe their demonology, nor their astrology; why we burn neither witches nor heretics; why we do not abuse the Old Testament to the same extent, and use it to justify crusades ; why, in short, we are beyond them in the discernment of any point which can be boldly pronounced to be The Truth; the only answer is, because the mind of the age is somewhat more cultivated. It is not by a larger outpouring of the Spirit; for the unspiritual partake in this light. Had not astronomy and other physical science dispelled the superstitions but recently general, these very Brethren might be now deciding causes of witchcraft by texts from Moses, or fighting battles with demons like Luther. Errors pardonable in the uneducated, are by no means so .in them; and least of all, while the FACT remains, that those among them who by superior capacity and cultivation would in any worldly society take the lead, are also The Gifted and Ruling men in their church.

6

So widely do we differ from this Brother's axiom (for as such it must be regarded), that philology, rhetoric, literature, et cætera, are worldly things in his sense, that we believe all honest exercise of the mind to be a truly religious matter. As the firing at a target forms an expert archer or musketeer; so the seeking after truth and nothing but the truth, in common every day topics, imparts to it a habit, which it retains in spiritual inquiries. Nay, we believe that one who should attempt to confine his mind to the latter subject, would inevitably contract most vicious habits of arguing and investigating. For we have not the same ability to verify and correct the processes of the intellect, when veneration or fear press too heavily on the reasoning faculty. But the 'Brethren are so spiritual and so devoted, they surely would not 'be allowed to go wrong;' says each concerning the rest. We reply, the most devoted men that ever lived, yes, and the most unworldly (if this is spirituality) have been among the Roman Catholics, and those, very superstitious ones. Man cannot with impunity transgress the conditions of being within which God has placed him; and he who tries to be holy out of the world, instead of holy in the world, must soon fall into gross and mischievous errors, from which a little of the world's ordinary sense might have saved him. Moreover, no declamations against Rhetoric secure men from using the lowest rhetorical tricks; no neglect of Ethics or Logic will serve to improve their insight into human duty, or their powers of investigation.

We must finally declare, that our own convictions have been much strengthened by the study of this Brother's reply, as to the substantial justice of all our complaints against them. What indeed but the most exclusive principles and peremptory denunciations, can one expect from the advocates of ignorance?

Whenever he touches a point of difference, he displays this dogmatic temper. Thus (p. 507): Neologically to explain the law of leprosy as a regulation of quarantine, or that of the avenger of blood as an adopted Arab custom, does surely argue 'a mind very, if not utterly, dark as to things spiritual.' It is not our purpose to advocate any particular interpretation; but we must protest against the Brother's supremacy over our faith. There is absolutely nothing in either Old or New Testament to prohibit what he is pleased to term the Neological' view; and whether it be true or not, can only be determined by that 'gene'ral literature' which he reprobates. If the phenomena of the oriental leprosy agree pretty nearly with the Mosaic; especially if there be two sorts, infectious and non-infectious (that is, unclean and clean); it would be irrational to reject the elucidation. The other question is equally connected with the laws of ancient nations concerning the exile of an accidental homicide.

6

As this brother is perplexed to know what we ever hoped for from them, and why we are disappointed, we will tell him. We admire enthusiasm, as we do the sportive bounds of a child, or the vehemence of youth. It is a noble power, stirring the heart deeply, the spring of every reformation; generally self-denying, self-devoting, connected with the highest principles of humanity. But its effervescence too soon sours into fanaticism. When it becomes intolerant-when, claiming private judgment for itself, it denies the same to others-when it is exclusive and dogmatic -when it proscribes all literature except its own productionswhen it forbids the cultivation and strengthening of the intellect -when it shuts out intercourse with other minds, equal to its own in power, but differing in sentiment-our hopes of good from it fall indeed very low. Nay, another fear remains, that the distortion of understanding which it occasions may degenerate into pious frauds and cunning expediency, as happened with the ancient church What are we to think of this principle (not repudiated by the Brother), that it is a presumption to criticise the historical evidence for the canon of Scripture?' what, but that they adopt an irrational assumption, barely because they must else renounce their tenet of the uselessness of literature and mental cultivation.

We complained of their scornful, supercilious tone;' this Brother now recriminates on us, as equalling their scorn. We have hereby been led closely to interrogate our conscience, and obtain the following answer. It is possible that we have been led beyond bounds in our expressions; to pretend otherwise would be to advocate our infallibility or perfection. But most sincerely do we feel, that not one of the Brethren's sentiments that can be separated from intolerance would be treated by us with disrespect (however ill-grounded we might think them), if they