reason for rejecting the corn that it is mixed up with chaff and straw. The national, we might almost say, the insular spirit which we have inherited, does not prevent us in our other pursuits from laying the world under contribution: many of our comforts, and most of our ornaments and luxuries, are of foreign production. Our commerce extends to the remotest regions, and our enterprize is unlimited. By this craft we have our wealth; and if we would carry the same spirit into our Biblical researches and studies, it would be to our advantage. We might still honour the noble founders of our national religious literature, the growth of twelve centuries. We might still be proud of our fine old version of the Bible and of the illustrious scholars who produced or expounded it. We might still look with more than satisfaction upon the first-rate authors who now adorn the ranks of our literati. But over and beyond all this, we might make a greater use of what is ready to our hands in other countries.

There is another difficulty with which we have to contend, but which we must nevertheless continue to face, and that is, the traditional spirit. We are strongly conservative, and this is a disposition which we ought to cherish. It is a guarantee for the preservation among us of that which is right and good. It is our sheet anchor amid the storms and agitations of controversy and debate. But it is not an unmixed benefit; because it may prevent us from laying aside long-established abuses, and it must impede free thought and discussion. Now we have a traditional interpretation and application of many passages of Scripture, which is nevertheless not the true one. We are satisfied with it, because it seems to be conducive to edification, or because it can be used as an argument in support of recognized principles. And yet it is only consistent with a manly and fearless defence of the truth, that we should hold ourselves ready, if need be, to abandon any use of a passage which can be shewn to be unfounded. We ought to be prepared to investigate the Scriptures by the aid of all that science or learning can furnish, even although we may have to give up some of our old opinions. The Bible has a meaning, and if it can be shewn that our view is not the correct one, we should give it up for that which is correct. It will not do to ignore all the results of modern inquiry, for those results are great, and real, and many. If we do this, we place opinion before truth, and we lead not a few to regard us either with suspicion as insincere, or with contempt as ignorant. By such a course we debar ourselves of good, and weaken and injure the cause of truth. Far be it from us to recommend that reckless love of novelty which is driven to and

of men.

fro, and tossed about with every wind of doctrine. Far be it from us to advocate that our faith should stand in the wisdom And yet we do advocate that men should prove all things, and hold fast that which is good, that they should search the Scriptures diligently, and that they should candidly admit, in regard to them, the conclusions to which true science and criticism lead. All this is as consistent with a genuine spirit of conservatism, as it is inconsistent with a blind and unreasoning adherence to tradition, which dislikes and dispenses with inquiry. There is here, as everywhere, a via media, equally removed from the extremes of Popery and Rationalism, and far more likely to be safe.

We have mentioned Popery and Rationalism, and we believe them both to be, as we understand them, hostile to Biblical science and the love of the truth. The one relies too exclusively upon authority, and lives in the past. It says that such and such must be the true sense of Scripture, because it was held by such or such a one, or because it was declared to be so at such a time. This supersedes independent research, and only requires that we should ascertain the sense of the Church. Even if it permits research in certain cases, it is a fetter and a hindrance, because it assumes that the result is already obtained, and that now it can only be confirmed or justified. Where, however, the infallibility of the past is not asserted, and where the right and duty of independent personal investigation is admitted, Biblical studies will receive an impetus and be looked upon with favour. As to rationalism, it is the other extreme, and the danger from it is as great, if not greater. This not only denies the authority which the papal system alleges, but it assumes a competency in human reason, the individual reason, which is altogether preposterous. In fact it transforms revealed religion into a system of philosophy, and treats the Bible as it would the works of Plato, Newton, or Descartes. It wants those moral and spiritual qualities which are essential to the successful study of the Scriptures, and its criterion of divine truth is altogether inadequate. No wonder that it depreciates and distorts the Bible, and proves its utter incompetency for the task it has undertaken.

We shall not be misunderstood when we say, that in our opinion the Biblical student may learn not a little from both of these. From the one he may learn faith, and reverence, and reserve, and from the other his positive duty to search the Scriptures for himself. The former may remind him that modesty becomes him, inasmuch as others have gone over the ground before him; and the latter may suggest the importance

of a well informed and well disciplined mind in the study of the Scriptures. On the whole, it is apparent that the Bible should be so investigated as neither to offend the understanding of the intelligent, nor to shock the feelings of the devout; that the student should be endowed with wisdom as well as grace; and that God's honour and man's good should be his aim.

But the error of a false criticism does not lie only at the door of the traditionalists and of the rationalists. While we regret and avoid their faults, it must be admitted that there are many among us whose treatment of Holy Scripture is neither dignified nor impartial. There is a school which may be denominated the Sentimental, which, placing nearly the whole of their religion in "frames and feelings," as they were once called, adopts as the true intention of a text any view or application of it which may call forth right or strong religious emotions. They look at the Bible as a book of words and sentences, which have a magic force, or a spiritual force, different in different circumstances, and they utterly disregard the original design and the true meaning of the text. They make their feelings, and not their understanding, the interpreter of Scripture. It is very apparent that this Journal will not look for much aid and encouragement in that direction.

Closely allied to the sentimental school is the Fanciful, which takes delight in the art of ingeniously tormenting the sacred oracles. We find its representatives in those who emphasize particular words in the English version, where the original suggests no emphasis whatever; or who hunt for new and strange meanings for words, and seek for unsuspected etymologies, out of which they distil something novel, and perhaps even attractive and striking. This fanciful school is divided and subdivided, and its ramifications extend in every direction. Its members are active and zealous often, and not a few of them are truly pious and good men. Some of them are even learned, and Occupy a high place, and have much authority in the land. Most of them have the delusion that there is something "original" in their views, and the desire of bringing out something original" is in many little better than a monomania. We shall not specify cases, but content ourselves with indicating the fact, that the substitution of fancy for sense and reason is one of the most formidable opponents with whom we shall have to contend. Its danger lies in its insidious and attractive character, the reward it holds out to its followers, and the boundless field to which it invites men,-fields in which fancy may enjoy the luxury of roaming without constraint, and of meeting with an endless succession of congenial objects. It is easy to

see that past, present, and future are accessible to it, and that its work may be upon prophecy as well as on history, on doctrinal principles as well as on moral precepts.

There is another school which it is difficult to define, and which is nevertheless one from which sacred science can expect evil rather than good. We refer to the Mystical. That mystieism, in one form or in another, should have been in all ages so popular, and should be so popular now, is not to be wondered at. It is really a branch of the fanciful, but its direction is so marked, and its chief tenets are so well understood, or, rather, so specific, that there is little difficulty in recognizing it wherever we meet with it. Fancy may find its congenial sphere in the mere interpretation of the letter, but mysticism goes beneath the letter, and takes new views of the nature of things. The mystic claims an inward spiritual sense, some peculiar divine endowment, some clue to the unseen and the heavenly beyond that which other men enjoy. Perhaps, the highest type of the modern mystic is the Swedenborgian, who finds everywhere arcana, secrets, mysteries, double meanings, hidden truths, etc., etc. It is difficult to see how the interests of sacred literature, as a reasonable, intelligent, and sober literature, can be helped by mysticism. We do not absolutely condemn all mysticism, because we find all men take pleasure in it in some of its forms, and to a certain degree. It is in religion what the epithet romantic is in nature, and its real value, as it appears to us, may be thence estimated. As an object of study it is most interesting, and indeed most important; but in our judgment it should be viewed as a spectacle, and treated as a curiosity, not at all as a department of sacred science.

Sacred science is occupied about the grammatical, historical, logical sense of Scripture, but it carefully investigates and distinguishes the literal from the figurative and allegorical. Herein it differs from the sentimental, the fanciful, and the mystical alike, which bear the same relation to the scientific as poetry to prose; and after all, are more like the butterfly than the bee.

Before leaving this subject we will refer to one other school of interpreters which we cannot ally ourselves with, and that is the Denominational. We use this word for want of a better. What we mean is, that there are in certain churches and sects, certain conventional explanations of various passages, which are always taken for granted, and which it is a point of honour to maintain. The Churchman has them, the Baptist has them, the Presbyterian has them, the Independent has them, the Unitarian has them, the Roman Catholic has them, and all have them. Now it is very plain that we cannot admit any of them as such

here, because this would be to assume, in reference to external or party distinctions, a position which would not become us. We assume nothing, except what is properly called catholic truth, but at the same time we shall avoid giving needless offence to those from whom we differ. Sacred things will always be treated with reverence and respect, and in this way the laws of Christian charity will be honoured. But our readers will quite understand that, while we cannot endorse mere conventional interpretations, and will not offend the feelings of any by our allusions to differences of communion and the grounds of them, we entertain our own private opinions, and are not called on to give them up or ignore them. There are several things which we are very anxious to avoid, and among them are false principles of interpretation and a party spirit. The one would be hostile to the cause of sacred science, and the other would inevitably lead either to controversy or to our abandonment of our present catholic basis. And finally, therefore, we add, that we shall zealously labour to promote the interests of vital, real, personal religion, as distinct from church communion; and of Scriptural and Christian literature as distinct from all that does not rest on a scientific basis. After this it is needless for us to make a confession of faith, because it is clear that we shall continue to uphold all the great doctrines of divine revelation.

It would be easy to enlarge, but we hope enough has been said to remind our readers of the principles on which this Journal was founded, and which it still maintains. We hope also that we have clearly indicated the four departments into which this work is distributed; viz., Disquisitions, Reviews, Correspondence, and Intelligence. In all these we are mainly dependent upon the zeal of our supporters and the promoters of sacred learning. With their aid we hope to ensure a continuance of essays, both original and translated, in all the branches of Biblical and Christian literature, so far as our plan will admit. The Correspondence may be made a means of intercommunication of no ordinary value, and we invite the cooperation therein of all who have important communications to make, whether in the shape of critical, literary, or other inquiries, or in the form of information. We shall willingly make it a repository of "Notes and Queries" on all topics which belong to our domain. The reviews will embrace longer and shorter notices of new books, both English and foreign, and will be written by competent hands. This division will furnish a clue to the character and contents of the principal theological publications of the quarter. Finally, the miscellaneous department will contain not only a record of facts, but of opinions,