piety exists, it is deep and all-subduing. Its faults, which are numerous and great, are so generally acknowledged, that they need not here be specified. If, in introducing it among us, we could extract what is good and omit the rest, we should thereby not only enrich our own literature, but improve our national character. We do not, indeed, believe that such a separation will be made. It is impossible to find a work for translation, which shall exhibit nothing but the better element of the German mind. In this world, good and evil are rarely unmixed. Every valuable object of human industry is to be acquired at some hazard. Neither can our countrymen, in many instances, recast a German production, and thus separate the precious from the vile. The few attempts of this kind that have been made, have been unsuccessful. We cannot sufficiently enter into the views and feelings of those mighty and enthusiastic spirits, that are powerfully moved by springs hidden to us, to render it safe or practicable for us to remove any thing of importance from their creations of art and to attempt to replace it by our own skill. And if our young men cultivate an acquaintance with German literature, and are left, in this wide field, to their own choice of works, it would be strange indeed if some of them should not become transcendently wise.

But it is not at our option, whether our rising scholars shall slake their intellectual thirst at German fountains or not. Even the brutes will go where they find the best pasture. There never was a time in the world's history, when any place, distinguished for intellectual preeminence or superior scholarship, was not a centre of powerful attraction, drawing to the very spot many of those individuals whose loftiest aspirings were after knowledge, and winning attention to its literature from thousands who never performed the pilgrimage. What scholar needs to be reminded of Athens, of Alexandria, of various Grecian cities in the time of Cicero, and of Rome under the emperors? or of Bologna and Paris in the Middle Ages, of Italy at the revival of letters, of France in the days of Scaliger, Stephens and Cassaubon, of Wittenberg at the time of the Reformation, of Holland during the eighteenth century, and of Paris again in the latest times? Especially in this age, when knowledge is the prize for which the great and good are contending, as the chief instrument of

influence and power, is it preposterous to expect that ardent youthful spirits, that are panting for distinction, will content themselves with any thing short of a mastery of the science and literature of the nation that stands highest in the scale of intelligence. If we interpose and advise them to beware of a German book, they will regard us as belonging to a past age; or as administering counsel that is suited only to dwarfish intellects. The question may be regarded as settled. German literary influence, now the highest wave on the ocean, is to sweep over us. Nor are we terror-struck. The waters will, in the end, find their right place. Truth is a universal leveller. A few years ago, how threatening, in its aspect, was the literary influence of France! But is the prospect for future ages now darkened at all by that cloud that was once so black? German neology has already spent its force. The strongest intellects in the nation are now, with Herculean labor, cleansing the Augean stables of her theology. And, though stains of pollution are still seen on the garments of those emerging from the mire of rationalism, not only is that class of individuals becoming a host, embracing the most hopeful youth of the land, but they are beginning to cast off their spotted garments and to put on others suited to their new state. We might almost lay it down as a general truth in regard to German theological works, the later the production, the more evangelical it is. Relying on the great recuperative principle there is in human nature, and on the potency of truth to work out its own victory, we may well stand erect, and meet with unshrinking confidence every challenge to investigation. In an active age, enjoying the liberty of free discussion, any particular form of error is short lived. Infidelity, in its general character, may outlive a hundred generations; but it must often change its form. In the shape it assumed among the English deists of a former age, it has been conquered by argument; in the hideous and ferocious form of French atheism, it has been hunted down by the friends of humanity; the last head of this hydra, which has terrified Christendom, is German neology. But the church is recovering from her panic. Rationalism is crumbling at its base. After a frosty winter in the land of the Reformers, the vernal season is returning, with a luxuriance proportioned to its long delay. Who can say,

but that the regenerated theology of Germany shall, in the process of time, become more healthy and vigorous than our own?—that it will be like a running brook, while ours shall be like a stagnant pool. We hope better things; but theological science, as a doctrinal system, among us, is becoming more and more shallow. In its higher principles, it is either rejected, or received on the authority of the divines of other days. By our exclusive regard to practical theology, we give it increased expansion, at the expense of its depth. The Germans go to the opposite extreme. But a half century may show, that it is easier for them to descend from their height, than for us to ascend from our lowly vale. Indeed, the practical energy which we possess is the result of the theology of by-gone days. Our stability and firmness, so far as we act on sound theological principles, is owing, in no small degree, to the writings of such men as Edwards and Fuller. If their day of popularity shall go by, and the character of the next generation shall be formed by our present theological writers (if it may be said we have any), can we expect any thing else than that it shall be deficient in solidity? We do not yet believe that these things will be

so.

We hope the time is coming, when the community, instead of frowning upon the man who gives himself to intense thought on any of the more difficult subjects in theology, shall regard him as its benefactor; when it shall perceive that the gospel is designed, not merely to teach us the common duties of life, nor merely to assure us of pardon and acceptance before God, but also to excite to action all the higher faculties of our mysterious spiritual nature. It is an unworthy view of Christianity, which supposes its object to be, to turn the human mind away from the lofty contemplations to which it naturally aspires, and confine it to the range of palpable things. Neither the gospel of John, nor the epistles of Paul, agree with such a representation. The same infinite Being, who raises man above the brute, by giving him undeveloped powers of mind, and concealing in the works of nature. great principles of truth which are to be sought in order to be found, has, also, beside the common simple truths which lie on the surface of the Bible for every man's necessary use, laid beneath the covering many a golden mine to be opened only by him who digs for it. How much

VOL. IV.NO. XV.

48

did the profound Augustine, notwithstanding all his errors, find there to enrich his own mind, and the minds of others, who, like him, can grasp great truths! Perhaps three-fourths of Thomas Aquinas on Theology, is to us a useless book; but the other fourth contains a depth of wisdom, in vain to be sought for in many of our best theological writers. Who can deny that Calvin, whatever may be thought of his peculiar doctrines, drew forth much invaluable truth from the Bible merely by the greatness of his mind? Turretin, of the same school, though strained in some of his views, has, nevertheless, been a lasting blessing to the whole church, even to those who reject his system, by giving depth, and thoroughness, and power, to theological investigations. The elaborate Gerard, the moderate and judicious Buddeus, and many other Lutherans, though they are not without their faults, have greatly enriched the department of doctrinal theology; and dark will be the prospects of the church, when their writings shall be given over to contempt. What is it that gives imperishable value to the works of the old divines of England? Is it not their profound thought? Can any of the modern crusaders against profound and elaborate investigation in theology, dispense with the writings of Owen, Charnock, Howe, Baxter and Bates? Are not these mines of theological learning and wisdom, after all, a constant storehouse for supplying the demands of thinking minds throughout England and America? But it will be said, the Bible is the only storehouse of religious knowledge. True; but is it not the Bible as understood and explained by men? The Bible never speaks to mortals, or at least is never heard, as it is absolutely in itself; it speaks only according to the apprehension of the mind that receives it; all beyond is a perfect blank. So far as a man rightly interprets and understands, so far, as to any practical effect, does God speak to him, and no farther. Now if one man has a better comprehension of the Bible than another, if he enters more deeply into its doctrines and spirit, his instruction, unfolding the meaning of God's word, is more valuable to that other individual, than the mere reading of the Bible without understanding it. In such circumstances, he who is most familiar with truly valuable human productions is, after all, the most biblical; he comes in possession of

the greatest amount of biblical truth. If this were not so, why should Christians go to the house of God to hear his word expounded? Why not stay at home and study the Bible, and beware of human instructions? Some men reason, as if the act of receiving oral instructions on the Bible were submiting one's mind directly and purely to God's word; while the reading of those same instructions in a printed volume, is regarded as abandoning the Bible, out of preference to human authority. When we study the Scriptures alone, we receive them only according to the measure of our knowledge; we pervert them, and substitute something human wherever we misunderstand them. When we sit down to the study of the Bible, with another, and read, and inquire jointly with him, if we gain any new light by this method of mutual consultation, although there are now two human beings and but one Bible, which would seem to increase the chance of imbibing human opinions for divine revelation, yet, in reality, our views are more biblical and have less of human weakness and imperfection than before. When we take to our aid the ablest and best expounders and theologians that can be found, and study them in connection with the Bible, if all these great and good men can furnish our single minds, of ordinary capacity and limited research, with any new views of revealed truth, then by studying human productions, we have less of human system (our own crude and imperfect system), and more of pure, inspired truth.

But, it may be objected, that the new views derived from others are often false, and therefore corrupting. The same objection may be urged against preaching. Indeed, theologians are but preachers in the closet. There are the same dangers and the same remedies in both cases. We are never to surrender our reason, but inust test every thing by employing it in discovering the agreement or disagreement of such instructions with the Bible. In this labor of discriminating between truth and falsehood, we have the aid of many others. There are always, sooner or later, men of competent skill to detect error; and after both sides have been argued fully by a few individuals, all Christendom with the statute book of Heaven in their hands, sit as God's appointed jury.

We are not unmindful of the fact, that the aids to