not serve to promote the progress of theology, they shewed at least, that the human mind was not wholly sunk in barbarism. Some solitary spirits still perceived the truth, unable though they were to defend it against an overwhelming tide of superstition which soon covered it with an impenetrable incrustation.

The merits of Charlemagne as a patron of literature render his name more conspicuous than the vast political power he possessed. It is well known, that he established or restored schools which preserved the little learning before existing, and exerted a beneficial influence in dispelling the gross ignorance of the people. His court was a centre of attraction for the chief literati of the day, whose names shed a lustre around the imperial palace with which they were connected. England, Ireland, Spain, and Italy, contributed to it their ablest scholars. The zeal of Charles for the advancement of scientific studies was as untiring, as it was laudable. He frequently exhorted the bishops to activity in the cause of education. When he saw by their letters that they were deficient in the ability to express their ideas with propriety, he issued to them a circular epistle, urging the cultivation of knowledge, that they might be better fitted to understand the mysteries of Scripture. He even took great pains in correcting with his own hand the text of the Holy Bible which had been greatly corrupted; thus setting an example of Biblical study to the spiritual, and at the same time facilitating their path. The cathedral and conventual academies which he established, produced visible effects under his successors Louis the Debonair, Lothaire, and Charles the Bald. They were superintended by the most learned men of the day, who had still some zeal for sacred literature, and who sometimes founded libraries in connexion with the institutions over which they presided. Here theological science found an abode. Here we can trace a line of ecclesiastics the most conspicuous which the history of their time has preserved. To the Carlovingian schools, monastic or cathedral, we find attached such men as Rhaban Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Paschasius Radbert, Haimo, Druthmar, Hincmar, Otfrid, whose labours were generally directed to the exposition of the Holy Scriptures. These, and others that might be mentioned, must ever be associated with the reign of Charlemagne and his successors, upon which they shed rays of light that pierce but faintly the surrounding gloom.

In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, whilst Italy and England were sunk in the lowest barbarism, Spain was the abode of

several learned Jews engaged in the study of the Old Testament. When the persecuted posterity of Abraham were driven out of Africa, they settled in Europe, and exhibited their hereditary zeal in illustrating their Scriptures. The names of R. Jona Ben Ginnach, Aben Esra, David Kimchi, and Moses Maimonides, are illustrious in the annals of Jewish literature. R. Jona was a physician eminently skilled in grammatical lore. Aben Esra was called the wise by way of eminence. He commented on the entire Old Testament with much learning and judgment, so that Simon assigns him the first place among Hebrew commentators. Kimchi was the author of several books on Hebrew grammar, and of annotations on Scripture. The fame of Maimonides stands so high among the Jews, that he is reckoned the next to Moses their lawgiver. His great work, the "Teacher of the perplexed," is a sort of introduction to the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Amid the ignorance of the world, these scholars were occupied with the study of the Old Testament and its language, although their midrashim and such like allegorical fancies threw the literal sense into the shade. It is gratifying to contemplate the abode of men who silently endeavoured to unfold the meaning of the law and the prophets, and to facilitate the study of the language in which they are written.

But the most important development of an inquiring spirit during the middle ages is presented by the scholastic divines, who applied the Aristotelian philosophy to Christian doctrines. The disputes between the Nominalists and Realists, at first purely metaphysical, soon took a theological direction, each party charging the other with error, from the supposed bearing of their logical opinions on the nature of theological belief.

The schoolmen had the merit of giving a scientific form to the doctrines of the church; of filling up such chasms in the current ecclesiastical system as metaphysics detected; and of consolidating the whole into one compact mass. It is true, that their design was merely to confirm by philosophy the positions found in the fathers; yet the prosecution of this object gave rise to a scientific treatment of theology, and a more fundamental investigation of its contents. The scholastic divines brought some independent reflection into the province of didactic theology, and possessed much acuteness. Yet the custom of uniting the logic of Aristotle with the doctrines of revelation, tended to retard the progress of true investigation. An undue influence was assigned to dialec

tics. By them, not by Scripture, ecclesiastical principles were proved and defended. Hence the Bible was neglected. Summaries of doctrine were compiled from the fathers, and then systematically arranged by the aid of the ancient philosophy; but in the meantime, the Bible itself was pushed aside from its legitimate place. Anselm of Canterbury, who may be reckoned the founder of the schoolmen, has left no system, but merely separate and subtle arguments on particular points of religion. He was followed by Abelard, Peter Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas, the great masters of scholastic learning.* But the disputations of scholasticism degenerated into highly artificial and useless distinctions in which the true interpretation of the Scriptures had no place; for, in proportion to the progress of this subtle reasoning, the Bible was gradually forgotten. In consequence of the decline of scholasticism and its neglect of the letter of Scripture, the mystics arose, who set themselves to oppose the superabundance of theological subtilties which had accumulated in the course of two centuries, and to recal attention to the Scriptures themselves. But they discarded the literal, and had recourse to

a mystic sense. Hence they contributed nothing to Biblical interpretation. Scriptural Hermeneutics were equally unknown by the scholastics and mystics. Neither exhibited acquaintance with the general principles with which the interpreter needs to be furnished, and in whose application consummate skill is required. Doubtless there are to be found in the writings of the schoolmen specimens of the subtlest reasoning, and a logical method often desirable in the development of doctrines; but in them we look in vain for a separation from the writings of fathers and the decrees of councils. The authority of ecclesiastical tradition is still apparent; and the Bible itself in its sole supremacy recedes from our view, amid the arid speculations to which theology was linked by the presiding spirits of the day. It is only in one aspect that the schoolmen present a pleasing phenomenon in the latter period of the medieval age, we mean that of mental activity. In this they form a remarkable contrast to the dull and sluggish dependence

* Other schoolmen were Roscelin, Duns Scotus, William Ockham, William of Champeaux, and Hales. For a full and able account of the scholastic philosophy, I must refer the reader to Tennemann's Manual of Philosophy, translated by Johnson; and to the Life of Thomas Aquinas, and View of the Scholastic Philosophy, published in the Encyclopædia Metropolitana, by Dr. Hampden of Oxford.

Among the mystics we find Bernhard of Clairvaux, Hugo de St. Victer, Bonaventura, Gerson, Tauler, and Thomas à Kempis.

which marked a number of centuries. It is somewhat cheering to observe symptoms of mental sagacity, although they were indicative of little positive good. A line of spirits worked contemporaneously in the field of knowledge; and although their speculations were frequently trifling and tedious, they imparted a form to theology which it had not before attained. As we survey the later middle ages, from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, we may observe" a line of men conspicuous according to the standard of their times, in different walks of intellectual pursuit." Learning revived, especially in Italy; men of bold and independent minds began here and there to question the unlimited authority hitherto attached to the holy fathers; a few understood the Greek language, and ventured occasionally to depart from the trodden path. Among these Wycliffe and Huss, to whom may be added Laurentius Valla, stand preeminent. Others expressed themselves more timidly, lest they should awaken the suspicions of the church, but followed the grammatical system of interpretation, and thus contributed to weaken the ghostly domination of Romish ignorance. As we approach the sixteenth century, the human mind exhibits greater activity; books multiply and scatter the seeds of knowledge through various lands; the Scriptures are drawn forth from their monastic prisons, and once more exposed to the eager curiosity and awakening attention of men. Forthwith the immortal Luther casts off the fetters of a church notoriously corrupt, emboldens by his powerful example other reformers, who simultaneously perceive the truth in Jesus, and arouses a spirit which flies through all ranks of society, till it takes its unalterable stand upon the memorable protest, the starting-point of modern Protestantism.

* Hallam's Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, 4 vols. 8vo, London, 1837, &c., vol. i. p. 15.

CHAPTER VII.

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.

The Moral Interpretation.

THE moral interpretation is akin to the mythic, and owes its origin to the celebrated Immanuel Kant, Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in the University of Königsberg. Instead of selecting the objectionable parts of revelation, and disposing of them as accommodations to current prejudices, he endeavoured to bring them into harmony with his philosophy by imposing upon them peculiar constructions and senses. Such a combination was effected by means of the so-called moral interpretation. The philosophy of Kant led to the renouncement of objective knowledge, maintaining that nothing except practical reason and its decisions can have full certainty. It is not difficult to perceive how this prepared the way for the idealism of Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Schleiermacher. The moral interpretation consists in educing from the sacred Scriptures such ideas alone as are conformable to the pure principles of practical morality implanted in the bosoms of men. Nothing but the most perfect notions should be found in the written word, since it proceeds from God, with whom all is perfect. The literal exposition is thought to furnish notions less perfect and less worthy of God than the dictates of practical reason allow. Hence, other ideas, more suited to the advancement of morality, are attached to the words of inspiration, although violence is thus done to the historical and literal sense. The only value and object of the Bible is to introduce, illustrate, and confirm the religion of reason, which is supposed to be alone true, and sufficient. Thus a system of philosophy exercises an undue influence on the exegesis of Scripture, moulding and fashioning it in a peculiar manner.

The following extracts will serve to shew what view the critical philosophy of Kant took of the nature of true religion.

* "Sensum inferens, non efferens." Wegscheider. Institutiones, § 25, p. 91.

B b