As a theologian, Emesti is far less conspicuous than as a scholar, and his influence not so mark ed either on his contemporaries or on his successors. Before the middle of the eighteenth century, the Spenerian pietism had been almost banished from the Lutheran theology ; and the professors of that faculty in the Protestant universities of Germany no longer excluded philosophy from all interference in the doctrine of Christian belief. It had then been boldly proclaimed and maintained with pre-eminent ability by Semler, that Luther had commenced and not finished the Reformation of religion; but that this Reformation must still proceed, and that religion, like other branches of knowledge, must become purer and more perfect, in proportion to the increase of knowledge, and the developement of the human mind. At this date, accordingly, the theologians of Germany had begun to disregard the nonconfor mity of their doctrines with the Formula of the Lu. theran church; and after this period, few were at all apprehensive of openly controverting its tenets, when at variance with the results of their own speculations. From the unrestrained freedom of thought in matters of religion, which was now indulged, if not even en couraged, by the governments in their different uni versities, every one was at perfect liberty, without any derogation from his character as a clergyman, or instructor, to maintain and promulgate what opinions in religion he chose; and it must be ac knowledged, that the theologians have made, and are still making, every use and abuse of this licence, and have arrived at every conclusion that piety and learning, as well as presumption, folly, and irre. ligion, can suggest. It was at the commencement of this important era that Ernesti flourished as a theo logian.
Of the three sciences subsidiary to theology, phi losophy, history, and the grammatical exegesis, the first had been imperfectly applied, and without any interesting result, by Baumgarten, a scholar of Wolf; but the second, the historical interpretation, had, in the hands of Semler, been productive of conclusions subversive of much that had been hitherto held or thodox and even sacred. In the grammatical inter pretation of the New Testament some imperfect pro gress had been made by Bengel ; but the new epoch in the biblical exegesis commences with John Da vid Michaelis for the Old, and with Ernesti for the New Testament. It is, indeed, chiefly in hermeneu tic that Ernesti has any claim to the character of a great theologian. But here his merits are distinguish ed, and, at the period when his Institutio Interpretis N. T. was published, almost peculiar to himself. He ap plied himself to the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, after a long and familiar acquaintance with the Greek and Roman writers; and when form ed in his mind and taste by a constant study of these patterns. His interpretation of the New Testament
bears the character of both these circumstances. It is not only the matter, but, at the same time, the manner, in which it is conveyed; it is the selection of subjects, with the the pregnant brevity, the elegance and simplicity in which they are ex pressed, that confers on this little book so high and so singular a value. We find in it the principles of a general interpretation, and this without the assistance of any particular philosophy, not even of the Wolfi an, to which Ernesti was attached; but consisting of ol;servations and rules, which, though already enun ciated, and applied in the criticism of the profane writers, had never rigorously been employed in the - biblical exegesis. He admits in the sacred writings only one acceptation, and that the grammatical, con • vertible and the same with the logical and historical. The Scriptures, therefore, having this in common with all other writings, it follows that they can only be explained like mere human compositions ; that the rules of interpretation are the same in both; and that only through some peculiar constitution of speech and writing could any possible distinction between these subsist. He therefore justly censures the opinion of those who, in the illustration of the Scriptures, refer every thing to the illumination of the Holy Spirit; as well as that of others who, in contempt of all knowledge of the languages, would explain words by things, and thus introduce into the holy writings their peculiar losses and opinions. The analogy offaith, as a rule of interpretation, he greatly limits; and teaches that it can never alone afford the explanation of words, but only determine the choice among their possible sig. nifications, and must always stand in need of philo logy as an assistant. The spirit of Ernesti's inter pretation gives no countenance, however, to the re sults which many of his followers have deduced from the grammatical and historical exegeses. E very principle of his interpretation rests on the assumed inspiration of the holy books; and there is not perhaps a better antidote to the poisonous tenets of many of those who profess to be of his school, than the diligent study of his Interpret, and the relative Acroases of Morns. In the high. er criticism of the sacred books Erne:Iti did no thing. In dogmatic he always expreised great con tempt of strict systematic theology; and though he lectured for many years on the Aphorisms of Neu mann, it was rather in refutation than in support of his text-book.
Among his works the following are the more im portant :