13. Grotius (ob. 1645), Comm. in quat. Evv. 1644. Hala, 1769, ed. Windheim, 2 vols. His Commentary on the Gospels is characterized by its unaffected exegesis and by the copiousness of its antiquarian and linguistic remarks, as well as parallel passages from profane writers, which, however, are not always apposite.

14. Lampe (ob. 1729), Comm. exegetico-analyticus in Ev. Joh., Amst. 1735, 3 vol. 4to. Lampe puts this in a huge shell rudely constructed of abstract logic and unaccommodating dogmatic, nevertheless it has been used by following commentators as a light to their feet. Under the panoply of syllogism there beats a feeling heart, and his learning is so respectable that probably none of those who have come after him have exercised so much independent care on the Gospel.

15. Bengel (ob. 1752), Gnomon N. T. 1773 (republished by Dr. Steudel). His indications are sunbeams and his hints flashes of lightning. Where he treads in a beaten path he compresses into two or three words what others say in long pages, and frequently he opens new views through rocks and forests.

16. Carl Christ. Tittmann (ob. 1820), Meletemata Sacra sive Comm. exegetico-critico-histor. in Ev. Joh., Lips. 1816. On the whole a very easy and natural exegesis, but it fails in depth as to the developement of ideas and in precision.

17. Paulus, Comm. zu Evangel. Joh. in his Comm. zu den Evangelien, vol. iv. 2nd ed. The Gospel of John is commented upon only as far as ch. xi., i. e., as far as the history of the Passion. This Commentary is not on the whole so ample as that on the synoptical account. That which is faulty in this Commentary is probably at the present time better known than its merits. If the commentator were as well acquainted with the things of heaven as he is with the concerns of earth his book would be excellent. The author would without doubt have been more happy in explaining the judicial proceedings of Palestine than the life of Him in whose mouth no falsehood was found, and who was smitten for our sins.

18. Kuinoel, Comm. in Ev. Joh., 3rd ed. 1826. As a repertory of the views belonging to the exegetical period from 1750 to 1820, when the explanation of the words was just as deficient in acuteness as that of the matter was in depth, this Commentary may still be useful.

19. Lücke, Comm. zum Evang. Joh., 3rd ed. vol. i. 1840. In the first edition of this work there gushed forth a youthful enthusiasm, which, however, like that of Herder, was not distinctly conscious of its own existence; yet this was the first exegetical work in which the believing spirit of the recent theology expressed itself in a living manner. The second and third editions are considerably altered, and are distinguished by the clearness and

finished

finished character of the style as well as by profoundness of investigation.

20. Olshausen, Biblischer Comm. zu sämmtlichen Schriften des Neuen Test. 5 vols. 3rd ed. 1832. The excellence of this exposition consists in the endeavour to develope the individual manner of thinking of the different writers of the Bible, in connection with the unity of the doctrinal views of the Bible in general. Yet it appears to us that the exposition of the three first Gospels is more carefully composed, and lays claim to a higher degree of originality than that of John.

21. Fikenscher, Biblisch-praktische Auslegung des Ev. Joh., 3 vols. 1831-1833. The work is a Biblical explanation for general readers of education, but it contains many hints which are of value to professed expositors.

22. H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch-exeget. Commentar über das N. T. Pt. 2, 1834. The Commentary of the author has improved in the succeeding volumes. The exposition of John must be designated

as meagre.

23. Kurze Erklärung des Ev. Joh., by De Wette, 2nd ed. 1839. The most important data for exposition are compressed in a judicious manner and with independent judgment, yet the mass of different notices compressed into so small a space prevents the impression of the whole; the brevity of his own explanations also is not sufficient to gain an altogether satisfactory insight into the most important passages. The Straussian criticism also has exerted an influence on the exposition of this Gospel, although this is much less than in the three first Gospels.

Great advantage may be gained preparatory to the study of this Gospel from Frommann, Johanneischer Lehrbegriff, 1831, and Neander's Geschichte der Pflanzung der christlichen Kirche, 3rd ed. 1841, p. 757, sq. [History of the Planting of the Christian Church, translated by J. E. Ryland, vol. ii. p. 239, sq.]

Whilst this Commentary was in the press there have appeared two works relating to this Gospel which deserve notice-the Commentary of Baumgarten-Crusius, vol. i. pt. i. (ch. i.-viii.), Jena, 1843; and a treatise by Köstlin (Der Lehrbegriff des Ev. und der Briefe Joh. und die verwandten neu-testamentlichen Lehrbegriffe. Berlin, 1843).

The work of the now deceased theologian of Jena presents for the most part in the text only his own exposition of the author, and notices other expositions principally in the notes with great brevity, as is the case with Lücke. It may lay claim to the merit of being an independent exposition, penetrating into the spirit of the Gospel. The position taken by the author, who does not decidedly belong

to

to any of the present theological schools, in reference to the question of the genuineness and credibility of the Gospel, is worthy of remark. With freedom, firmness, and historical tact he presents briefly the principal grounds which oblige us to acknowledge its genuineness; and as regards the credibility of the matters of fact, he maintains in general those views which the extreme criticism of the present day wishes to regard as antiquated, applying to them the name of antiquated Harmonistic and Apologetic;' only with regard to the miracles the deceased author assumes a negative but by no means a clear position. He defends also the originality of the discourses of the Redeemer as given by John, though he does not deny the influence of an elaborating hand. We here quote only what he says respecting the doctrine of the Logos. This doctrine, according to the view of the author, cannot be regarded as an expansion and personification of the Old Testament doctrine of the word and wisdom of God-it is more probably an exotic growth of Judaism invented in Alexandria in order to unite itself with the Grecian philosophy. The probability on the other hand is, that the doctrine of the Logos had found entrance and significance amongst Jews and Christians beyond Alexandria in the time of the composition of John's prologue.' Individuals only had introduced it in the immediate sphere of the Evangelist, perhaps Apollos. John has not made it the object of his own speculation, but has received it only to obtain an expression answering to his sublime impression of Christ.

6

The author of the new idea of John's doctrine (Lehrbegriff des Ev. Joh., &c.), which originally appeared in Tübingen as a prize essay, adopts the principles of Baur and Schwegler. The Gospel (according to him) appeared in the second century, and is composed with the irenico-apologetical design of reconciling the opposite parties that existed in the Christian church. In Christ's discourses throughout, and even when John the Baptist is introduced, no one speaks except the unknown Evangelist. He has completely disengaged himself from the principles of Judaism. The fundamental idea of the work lies in the thought that Christianity is the absolute religion. This absolute religion has appeared in a personal form in the λóyos become man, by whom first light and life have been imparted to the world, so that out of him there is only death and darkness. The author lays claim to having risen in his work, considered as an exhibition of objective history, high above the stand-point of Frommann, but he has no right to claim this, except on the supposition that Dr. Baur's view of the history of the dogmas of the first and second century is the only one that has an historical foundation.

On

ON THE RELATION OF SCRIPTURE TO
HUMAN INQUIRY.

By WILLIAM M'COMBIE, author of Moral Agency,
and Man as a Moral Agent,' &c.

TRUTH may be viewed as objective or as subjective, and in all inquiries which embrace the operation of human thought and feeling, it is of importance that this distinction should be kept in view. That Being has its modes, laws, and relations, not the less though these should not be apprehended or known by any human mind, will be admitted by all, save the pure idealist. While this is what constitutes objective truth, subjective truth is the mental perception or apprehension of these.

Truth ranges itself under various divisions, e. g., scientific, speculative, historical, moral. Scientific truth, whether demonstrative or inductive, admits but of one uniform apprehension in all minds. It is not exactly so with historical truth, and still less so with economical, speculative, and moral. Many matters, political, social, and intellectual, may be very variously apprehended by different minds. Very different and even opposite views may be entertained of them; in their subjective state therefore they take the form of OPINION. Moral truth, on the other hand, in its subjective state takes the form of CONVICTION. Whether the former (opinion) induce to action or not is a question of expediency, the latter must be acted on (its very object is to induce action), or the moral sense suffers violence. Now we conceive that Revelation comes in as an authority only in the latter of these-moral truth, or what involves obligation. It binds duty, but leaves opinion free.

On matters of natural science, of cosmogony, of history, on which the sacred writers may have had occasion to speak, we conceive that revelation neither precludes nor forbids the fullest inquiry; and that its proper authority is not in the least affected by whatever may be the results of such inquiry. The Bible is not a revelation of natural or of civil history (although it embodies the earliest observations extant in the former, and the most ancient and trustworthy notices of the latter), far less of physical science, but of man's relation to God as a moral being, and more especially of his state as a sinner, and the Divine scheme of redemption.

If we inquire dispassionately, and apart from the influence of systems, what was the nature or measure of the influence called Inspiration,

Inspiration, we shall find that, in entire correspondence with the view we have just stated, it extended to the message simply as it bore on the moral or spiritual being of man; that the forms of history, poetry, apologue, were merely the shell or the setting in which the pearl of spiritual truth was conveyed. While it was meant to enlighten the mind, it was chiefly in order that it might reach the heart or soul, melt and subdue it by the love of God, and transform it into his image anew. Accordingly we find Divine truth in the Scriptures conveyed, for the most part, not in the abstract, but in the subjective form. It comes forth as the utterance of human hearts-hearts instinct with spiritual life-a life which fills and subjugates the whole being. And even in those places where God himself condescends to address men directly, his voice is but the utterance as it were of a human subjectivity, expressing the hopes, the fears, the joys, the surprisals of a limited and embodied mind. This condescension-this anthropomorphising, is not without an aim. It has an object of the highest importance in view-nothing less than to reach the sympathies of the human soul.

Spiritual truth, in addition to its coming to us chiefly in the subjective form, in contradistinction from the abstract or scientific, is linked, to great extent, to facts-facts in the history of nations and of individuals. Its varied and wondrous appliance of motive, as well as its moral code, is made to a great extent to cluster round and spring out of those facts. The whole mechanism, if we may so speak, of the redemptive economy, from first to last, moves and plays amid human life and action, and is evolved by human agency. Had belief been purely or chiefly an intellectual state, it is probable Revelation would have come to us in the form of abstract statement, but being more a state of the heart or soul, it comes prevailingly in the form of interesting and affecting facts, and bears in its speciality not the aspect of a formula, but of a testimony. Now testimony is a form of communicating knowledge or truth, which, when it bears on matters not otherwise ascertainable, demands confidence in him who gives it-an essential constituent of faith.

reason.

It is the fundamental doctrine of Protestantism that the Scriptures are the rule of faith. What is the domain of faith? Only matters not ascertainable through experience or the exercise of Whatever becomes matter of science is removed from this domain. All matters then on which the sacred writers may have had occasion to speak, coming within the region of science, or which may be ascertainable by observation, induction, or independent investigation of whatever kind, are not matters of faith. The Scriptures give no authoritative deliverance on them, but so

far