to investigate the meaning of what his author says, and to leave other things to philosophers, doctrinal writers and moralists. As an interpreter, his only interest is rightly to understand his author, and exhibit his thoughts to the reader without any foreign admixture. In the third place, a commentary should not be crowded with matters not immediately connected with it." Rückert here refers to the intermingling of illustrations from authors belonging to other nations and times. This rule is frequently transgressed by quotations from the classics."Fourthly, a commentary should be methodical. The sense of every passage should be so exhibited before the reader, that he shall see the right explanation gradually developing itself, and while, with perfect freedom his own thoughts are following the interpreter, he may obtain through him a correct exegesis.'

Here we have the principles set forth, by which the true interpreter should guide himself. In the condition of mind. required by them he must continually strive to place himself. The paraphrast may take another course, and the expositor and the preaching commentator; but the true interpreter is bound by stricter laws. The rules laid down may be easily misunderstood and perverted, yet we believe, as Rückert meant them to be understood, they are substantially true and vitally important. They require of the commentator a vast labor and severe discipline. He may not read at haphazard, nor judge by the measures of an ordinary attention. Perhaps the most difficult problem to be solved in framing a system of principles of interpretation, is to determine how far the actual moral state. and opinions of the reader must, or may affect his views of the meaning of the sacred writer. Rückert maintains that it should be neutral. In point of scientific accuracy we believe him to be right, however difficult the attainment may be, and however seldom made. The feelings of the reader are to follow the mind of the Spirit, not to control it. The moral judgment of the apostle is to be adopted, not reduced. The difficulty of the analogous problem, is much less in regard to cases of pure reasoning, than that which pertains to arguments of a mixed nature, grounded partly on logical statements and partly on moral sentiments. There are many such cases in the writings of Paul, where the understanding does not at all, or bardly comprehend the propriety of an inference which the moral sentiment apprehends at once and embraces. Here there must be a sympathy with the spirit of the writer, yet as in the case of purely mental operations, it must be a sympathy of our spirit with his, not of his with ours. As we must stand on the

eminence from which he looks, that we may apprehend the force of his reasonings, so must our feelings flow in the same channel with his, that the same themes that move him may move us, and move us as they do him. Then the state of the interpreter's mind becomes neutral; not indifferent to truth, nor insensible to its beauty and power; but neutral in respect to the mind of his author, and neutral because coincident. The love of truth must be superior to that of system, and to that of what we here supposed to be truth. Wherever this love predominates and is in full exercise, the mind will naturally put itself in the posture of mere learning, and refuse to create. The result will be neutrality, and natural coincidence. This topic is one of great interest, but our limits forbid us to enter on the discussion of it.

The commentary of Rückert is a thorough and consistent application of his principles. His object is to develop the meaning of the apostle, as it lay in the apostle's mind, and as he has himself expressed it. He does not stop to instruct or exhort. He does not try to prop up the apostle's affirmations with arguments of his own invention. If there be convincing power in his reasoning, he is content that it shall do its work. If not, the reader must remain unconvinced, for him. He wastes no words in illustrations, makes no parade of learning. He seldom refers to other commentators, for he has to do with Paul and not with them. Or if he sometimes alludes to their errors, he falls into no elaborate discussion; one stroke cuts through. He pays no deference to opinions, but manfully trusts his own reason and the power of truth. Nor does he concern himself whether Paul's doctrine be true; he seeks only to know what it is, and how he proves it, and thereto weighs every argument, analyzes every proposition, examines its logical worth and bearing, and traces out the whole order and progress of the discussion. As a specimen of clear, searching and accurate analysis, as a mere work of art even it is worthy of most careful study. The students of the crammed commentaries of Scott and Henry will be astonished by a clearness and speed of thought to which they have been strangers, and may learn perhaps that the simple thoughts of Paul are richer than the wisest inferences of the best men."

* The following extracts from the notes upon Rückert may throw light upon the character of the author, and upon his principles of in

We have already intimated that the doctrine of the resurrection has fallen into unwarrantable neglect. It is taught too much by implication, and not as the apostle taught it, as a cardinal truth, a ground point of the Christian system, worthy of distinct demonstration and itself the great evidence and condition of our immortality. Rückert's Commentary may do somewhat to remove the obscurity which has been thought to bang over this part of Scripture and this doctrine of revelation; and thus set aside one of the reasons of its almost oblivion. It sustains generally the terpretation. The first passage is from the preface to the Commentary on the first epistle to the Corinthians:

"In conclusion, it only remains for me to express the wish, that the portion of the public that have hitherto been favorable to me, may still remain so. The opponents, in part the authors themselves of commentaries on the epistles explained by me, who have made me feel pretty strongly their censorial importance—even to menaces—are still at liberty to exercise their office on my labors. So far as they are in the right, I will seek to profit by their remarks, whether made in a friendly or inhuman manner, so that ny undertaking-the sound interpretation of the great apostle-may be advanced. What objections of a personal nature they may have to propound, I shall, as hitherto, pass by in silence." In the Preface to his Commentary on the second Epistle to the Corinthians, published in 1837, he says: "That which I have accomplished I commit to the unprejudiced examination of reasonable critics. Whatever opinions or even confutations of my positions I may see, for these I shall be grateful. Some things may escape me in consequence of the location in which I find myself. When occasion offers, earlier or later, I shall seek to profit by these criticisms. On the first part-the Commentary on the first Epistle-no judgment has been expressed to my knowledge, except that the sale which it has found in the course of the first year, seems to show that the public are not unfriendly to it."

"Rückert, so far as we have been able to judge from the portions of his commentaries which we have read, is faithful to his principles. A striking characteristic, on every page, is the straight forward manner in which he advances to his object. He turns neither to the right hand nor to the left. His single object is to develop the ideas of his author. In doing this, he is perfectly ready to march against the frowning batteries and proudly cherished structures of his predecessors, or even to pass on to his object without the slightest notice of their labors. This honesty of aim, this directness of purpose, we cannot but admire. We have increased confidence in the invincibleness of truth. We have more unwavering trust in those great doctrines which can endure this sharp-sighted critic, which come out: unimpeached from the most severe cross-questioning.".

conclusions which have been received by divines in this country, though in some points the author differs from them. These differences, however, ought not to affect materially our estimate of the value of the work. We have in them the convictions of an honest mind, which shrinks from no labor, and fears nothing so much as a forsaking or wavering statement of the truth.

The treatise of Lange, on the Resurrection of the Body, which is appended to that of Rückert, is a brilliant speculation. The views which it opens are interesting as matters of thought, and of practical, personal interest too, though in the regions of conjecture. The notions of nature and of life from which they are derived belong to a philosophy eminently attractive, but which has as yet gained few disciples among us.

Then follows a Life of Plato from Tennemann, a careful examination and statement of the principal events of his life. This piece will be thought valuable by our scholars, not only for the information it gives respecting Plato, but as an excellent specimen of the style in which a literary biography should be written. The testimonies of ancient writers are exactly compared and sifted, and the principles of historical criticism skilfully applied. Annexed to it is what may be called a sketch of "the literature of the subject," by Prof. Edwards. The translators encourage us to expect another volume, relating solely to Plato and Aristotle, and containing a full account of their lives and philosophical systems. This attempt is an earnest that it will be well done, and we cannot doubt it will be highly acceptable to the scholars of our country.

The last article is on the Sinless Character of Jesus, by Prof. Ullmann, of Heidelberg, and translated by Prof. Park. The subject is one of matchless interest. Its relations to dogmatic theology are of fundamental importance, and the bearings of it in this relation deserve a careful examination. But to our mind the moral interest of it, and its intimate connection with the christian life give it a higher attraction.

The doctrine of human culture, considered as a science, rests on the idea of the Perfect. But our apprehension, from the imperfectness of our faculties, is necessarily feeble, and by our depravity is made dim; and, as the discipline depends on the clear brightness of it, it were a sad lot for us who are born with a natural upward striving, if we must labor forever like blinded Polyphemus, feeling after what we cannot see, turning only mangled orbs to the great light. Yet such we should be in the

of

We can discern a ray

darkness of our own perceptions. light, yea many and glorious rays. We can recognize one and another virtue beautiful and excellent. But nature and our experience furnish only fragments, and nowhere is the power to reproduce the original image from which they were broken. History furnishes no example of a perfect man, nor yet has the mind of any formed a full conception of the grace and dignity of complete manhood. It were a kindness worthy of a God to send into our world one pattern of what man should be, to reanimate the hopes of the virtuous, with the assurance that they do not struggle in vain, and wake the slumbering elements of goodness in the hearts that are worldly. Without it our efforts were irregular and often ill-directed, for our views would have neither unity nor life. Such a blessing is vouchsafed us in the person of Jesus. When we contemplate the wonderful combination and balance of his character, his calm virtue, his spotless life, do we first begin to realize what man should be, and may be, and find ourselves drawn towards that living model, with a sweet and gentle persuasion that cannot be resisted. Then rises in our firmament a brighter star than of sages and heroes, There is virtue and healing in its light.

The influence of the perfect purity of Jesus on the development of Christianity in the soul of man has certainly been undervalued among us. We dwell not too much, but too exclusively, on the crowning grace, the love that died. Here, doubtless, is the origin and great fountain of our spiritual life, and hope; but what had been the nature of that death, without the obedience that went before? His perfect innocence magnifies the offering of Christ, not merely as a sacrifice to God, but as a free gift to man; but had even the sacrifice been made, and the redemption made sure, where had been our guidance, but for that pillar of light, the sinless purity of Jesus? We are not merely to be redeemed by his grace, we are to be of his spirit; and as by his death we are effectually born again, so by meditation on his life are we to build up our spiritual being, and become Christ-like and God-like. We know many on whom this great power seems to be lost, many too who are Christians, we may not doubt; yet their character would gain, we think, both consistency and completeness, by a sympathy with Jesus as a man, as it has strength from adoring him as God.

We do not trust ourselves to say all that we think of the value of this article. It is an ample and masterly discussion,