prehend what is appropriate or necessary to the nature of any person or thing, will not surely be able to attain to the right sense of words; but inasmuch as every thing in his own mind is distorted and perverted, he will naturally be on the lookout for ambiguity and quibbles in the language of others.

There is moreover cause of apprehension, that this simplicity of character may become impaired at an earlier period than theologians in general come to the interpretation of the New Testament. We ought therefore to be much on our guard lest this happen through our own fault. For in this simplicity is required, first, a certain natural integrity of disposition; secondly, rectitude of intention; and lastly, purity and constancy of mind; from all of which, at the present day, there is usually some falling off. That integrity of disposition which affects us so pleasantly in children, is apt to disappear among the innumerable arts by which human life is encompassed, and drops away like childhood's earliest flower; so that those who are trained with the greatest care, are not seldom found to have swerved the furthest toward the opposite extreme. Whether this arises from the character of human life in general, which cannot be passed without the employment of art and deception; or from the fault of our mode of education, which is perhaps too far removed from the simple laws of nature; we must in any case regard it as an evil of very great magnitude; and if all our treasures of learning, on which we so gormandize, have been necessarily purchased at this price, there is reason to fear that we have exchanged gold for brass. It is particularly in this respect that the works of the ancient classic writers may be recommended to be studied by an interpreter; because in them, and more especially the Greeks, e. g. Thucydides and Xenophon, although affairs, they were devoted to letters and occupied with important there is yet exhibited that natural integrity of disposition and feeling, i. e. that simplicity of character, which it has happened to few in our days to preserve.

In regard to rectitude of mind and intention, which is wholly lost in the pursuits of an artificial and complicated life, how can we expect to find it among the multiplied questions, opinions, and distinctions, which distract theologians-in short, among the innumerable thorns with which theology in these days is overgrown-except in a suffocated and corrupted state? There are few indeed, who approach the interpretation of the New Testament with minds uncorrupted and unprejudiced. The greater

part have already imbibed certain opinions. Some have become habituated to the ancient formulas of theologians; others have learned to cast off all restraints, and are wonderfully delighted in the exercise of their own ingenuity. One party are led astray by the authority of some theological system; the other by the most recent form of philosophy. All in short forsake the plain and simple path, and have recourse to art in searching after truth. That rectitude of purpose, therefore, which sees and comprehends the truth directly and without evasion, is exhibited by few in the interpretation of the New Testament. And hence it naturally happens, that as such interpreters are themselves wanting in simplicity, this virtue is also not found in their interpretations.

Lastly, purity and constancy of mind are in the highest degree necessary to simplicity, inasmuch as a mind that is corrupt and wavering is neither adapted to perceive the truth, nor to understand what is necessary or appropriate to any thing. We must here particularly guard against the opinion of those, who believe themselves sufficiently furnished for the explication of the sacred books, when they have heaped together stores of erudition derived from every quarter; but who regard it as a matter of indifference in what way the mind and heart are formed and affected. For although the error of those who think that piety alone, without learning, is sufficient for interpreting the sacred books, is very pernicious; still it cannot be denied, that the more pure, chaste, uniform, and constant the mind, the better it is adapted to understand and expound the word of God. Τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ OU. The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. The natural man comprehendeth not the things of the Spirit of God.' 1 Cor. 2: 11, 14.

More especially, however, there is required for the simplicity which we are discussing, that virtue or quality of mind which may enable the interpreter always to control his own genius and imagination; so as to indulge himself in nothing, and to avoid constantly every sport and sally of the fancy. This is truly more difficult than is commonly believed; especially with those who possess a richness of genius and take pleasure in a figurative style, and who therefore err through natural abundance; a species of error in which others, men of inferior capacity, so much delight, that they endeavour to cover up their poverty of

There is

genius by a ridiculous hunting after similar figures. however nothing of greater moment to the interpreter, than to avoid all sallies and arts of this kind; and he should prescribe it as a law to himself, that the more acuteness and skill any interpretation may seem to display, the more cautious should he be in proving it. We are indeed deceived by nothing more easily than by the adulation of our own self-complacency; and it is often the case, that an interpretation which exhibits great ingenuity, although it be demonstrably false, is scarcely, and perhaps never, laid aside, inasmuch as no one willingly resigns the praise of ingenuity and acuteness. Others again are seduced by such examples; and they too strive to bring forth something acute and splendid. For since there is in simplicity a certain elegant poverty and an appearance of facility; many interpreters seem to fear lest they should be contemned on account of this poverty; and therefore they prefer to show off in the use of false aids, rather than unpretendingly follow after the plain and simple truth.

This simplicity in the interpretation of the New Testament is also so much the more necessary, because of the great simplicity in the thoughts and teaching both of the sacred writers and of our Lord himself. In regard to our Lord, who in all his human character exhibited the highest perfection, no one can be ignorant of the simplicity of heart and mind which reigned in him, unless he himself be wholly destitute of any sense or perception of this virtue. There was in Christ not only that perfect integrity of morals and of practice, by which we so easily distinguish men of simplicity and uprightness from those who are artificial and insincere; but he exhibited also such admirable purity and truth of character, that his whole life is the most delightful image of the highest and most perfect simplicity. And this was exhibited not in any poverty of mind nor in low views of things; but consisted in the simple and true conception of the loftiest subjects, and was chiefly conspicuous in the entire direction of his mind to heavenly things; a virtue which constitutes the essence of true religion. It is therefore an error to suppose with some, that a man devoid of this simplicity is adapted to comprehend divine things. It is on the other hand no doubt true, that through the arts with which we are accustomed to embellish, or rather to corrupt human life, we bring loss and damage to the prevalence of true religion. But the more simplicity of mind and heart, so much the more prompt and prone, as it

were, is a person to embrace religious truth. He then only can comprehend the simplicity of our Lord, so conspicuous even in the loftiest sublimity, who is endowed in some degree with the same quality. Theologians, on the contrary, in searching for sublimity in a certain artificial obscurity, have transformed the teaching and doctrines of Christ, so heavenly, simple, and appropriate, and so admirably accordant with the eternal relations of the human race, into a system which is artificial, arbitrary [positive], and more correspondent to human opinions. This might be demonstrated by many examples; especially of such passages as are said to contain mysteries. Interpreters have indeed not seldom found difficulties, because they have not followed the simple method of the divine Master; but have sought in his words the occasions of doctrinal and metaphysical discussions. More particularly is the perception of this simplicity necessary in those passages, where our Lord has pointed out the necessary and eternal relations of human and divine things; in the comprehending, observing, and following out of which consists essentially all true religion and piety; and which he has brought forth, as it were, from the sacred recesses of his own mind in such a way, that he has often signified them by a word or by language simple indeed, yet significant and forcible in the highest degree. These relations, it is true, are of such a nature, that they are to be comprehended and felt in the mind, rather than expressed in words; and they are therefore little understood by those who are accustomed to embody divine i. e. eternal and infinite things in the resemblances of words and reasonings. Hence there have been at all times few, who could justly estimate the piety of the most excellent men; as the example of our Lord himself clearly demonstrates.

But the apostles also possessed the highest simplicity; and it is therefore to be feared, that he who is not capable of perceiving and imitating this quality in them, will be found altogether unqualified for the interpretation of the sacred books. There are indeed some who suppose, that Paul presents to us a more learned, animated, and subtile mode of discussion and writing; and even Ammon* does not hesitate to affirm, that in the epistles of Paul the more difficult intepretation is not seldom to be preferred. But although it be conceded, that Paul has sometimes disputed artificially; yet he always exhibits that simplicity

* Nota ad Ernesti Institut. Interp. N. T. P. II. c. I. §22.

which, as we have said above, consists not in facility, or rather in an appearance of facility, but in integrity, verity, consistency, and necessity. And those arts which are charged on this writer, have often arisen not from the meaning of Paul, but from the imagination of interpreters. They have taken it for granted, that a man deeply imbued with Jewish erudition, has of course instituted subtile disputations in letters written in the language of familiar intercourse; and therefore in the simplest discourse of the apostle, they have sought for artifices To Aoyov. How inconsiderately some have done this, Paul has himself shewn in 1 Cor. 2: 4 seq. In this passage the aлódεisis пvevμatos xai ἀπόδειξις πνεύματος δυνάμεως, which is opposed to τοῖς πειθοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφί as loyous, signifies that simple power of divine truth which the ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται; and they are λόγοι διδακτοὶ nvεúμaros ayiov, which coming with that divine power, produce certain and real persuasion; verse 5. And although it was not always in the apostle's power πνευματικοῖς πνευματικά συγκρί vEw, to compare spiritual things with spiritual (verse 13), but he must also sometimes dispute with his countrymen xar avdowπου οι κατὰ σάρκα; nevertheless even in discussions of this sort, however subtile, he has still preserved a great simplicity; i. e. he has managed these discussions in such a way, as that all the parts and circumstances are consistent and coherent and tend to one great end, as if by a natural completeness and necessity. But where theologians can justly attribute to Paul any thing of that subtilty which is found in the schools, I am not aware. They would seem rather to be striving to secure the authority of the holy apostle for their own opinions, by making him the author of them; and hence they have not unfrequently been compelled to have recourse to forced or subtile interpretations.

Errors of this kind have been committed the more frequently in regard to the writings of Paul, because interpreters have not sufficiently regarded the nature of that species of language which is commonly employed for the purposes of familiar intercourse; but have expected rather in his epistles an accurate distribution and arrangement of topics, and a continued and uniform discussion, just as if they were regular theological treatises. Indeed, the interpreter should above all things fix his mind on that simplicity, which men who employ the language of daily life and are unacquainted with the more learned and artificial style of books, are accustomed to preserve in writings of this sort. This is found in all the writers of the New Testament;