of Leo's predecessors, had thus decided, "it must not be said that there are two natures in Christ after their union; for as the soul and body form but one nature in man, so the divinity and humanity form but one nature in Christ." If the words, "one nature," of pope Julius, can be taken in an orthodox sense as meaning what Leo meant by "one person," the same may be true in the case of Eutyches, and thus he ceases to be a heretic. It cannot, however, be denied, that the phrase, "one nature," was ill chosen, as tending to confusion, and that the expression "one person," is much to be preferred.

As to Eutyches, therefore what Leo called one person, he called one nature, made by the union of the divine and human. He denied, however, neither the original divinity, nor the assumed humanity of Christ, nor their union-but he chose to regard the result of the union as one compound nature, rather than one person. Had not the ambitious Cyril been jealous of Nestorius, who as patriarch of Constantinople eclipsed him, the heresy of Nestorianism would probably never have been heard of. Had there been no envious rivalry between Dioscorus and Leo, there might have been no need felt of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Kind and Christian comparison of views, might have removed verbal differences, corrected real errors if any existed, and united all in the same words and truths, which were at last set forth at Chalcedon. But kind and Christian comparison of views was not the spirit of that age. It was the age of Gnostic asceticism, of sacramental regeneration, and sanctification, of demonolatry, of false miracles, of relics, shrines, and temples dedicated to saints. It was the age of pious frauds, and of morals degraded almost beyond conception. It was the age of rivalry between the patriarchs of the leading sees of the Roman world, each striving to distance his antagonist in the race. To conclude all with one fact, it was the age in which one deemed in other ages a madman, even Simeon Stylites, was revered as a saint, in which enthusiasts from the most remote provinces thronged around his pillar, with feelings of adoration, and even the emperors Theodosius and Marcian consulted him upon the most important affairs of the church.

Such was the age of Leo. It would have been for his eternal glory had he risen above such an age, and opposed its prevailing spirit. But if he did not; if he was guilty even' of atrocious lying, to secure the power of the Roman see, it must be remembered that such a saint as Ambrose is involved in a similar condemnation, and that Jerome does not hesitate to defend lying in controversy. 'The sins of Leo were no doubt great, yet he must be judged in view of his age and education.

It remains that we say a few words concerning those works of his which have come down as a legacy to posterity.

The first thing that strikes us on surveying his works is, that he

was after all more of a statesman and religious politician, than a voluminous or profound divine. He who undertakes to read Augustine must gird himself for the work. With an energy, terrible to his adversaries, and with keen dialectics, he goes thoroughly and at great length into the subject to be discussed. His works have taxed the intellectual powers of all subsequent ages.

Nothing of this kind do we find in Leo. His discussions are all short. He relied more on authority than on argument. Standing as he conceived in the place of supreme arbiter among Christians, he rather propounded doctrines as the head of the church, than sustained them with a long and acute logical process. Even his celebrated letter to Flavianus, on the person of Christ, occupies but little more than two pages of the Venice edition of his works in folio 1748. At the close of his epistles, there is indeed a treatise of three pages and a half, against the errors of Eutyches and other heretics. But in this the essential parts of the letter to Flavianus are introduced verbatim, whilst other considerations are added. This letter then must be considered as his main theological treatise, and when we consider its brevity, it has certainly gained an unusual celebrity. Of it Neander says, that "it constitutes an epoch in the history of the doctrines of faith." This however is certainly not owing so much to its argumentative ability, as to the fact that Leo had influence enough with the emperor, to secure its adoption as the rule of faith by the Council of Chalcedon. But considering the influence exerted by it on the world, it deserves to be translated and illustrated with notes.

The sermons of Leo, which have been preserved, were delivered by him before the Roman people, on the leading religious festivals and fasts of the year. They are not as with us based on a text of Scripture. They are rather short addresses, the delivery of which would occupy from five to twenty minutes.

No plan of discussion is ever announced, but he introduces freely whatever topics, doctrinal, practical, or hortatory, he considers congruous with the occasion. With our standard of sermonizing few if any of them would be regarded as powerful performances, and yet the majestic person of Leo and his accomplishments as a speaker, may have invested them with deep interest to the Romans. Indeed there is something impressive even to us in the thought that we are reading sermons, delivered to the people of that proud city, once the centre of that iron empire that bruised and broke in pieces the whole earth, and in the midst of the undestroyed monuments of her ancient glory, whilst yet she stood upon the very verge of her final and irrevocable fall. The slavery of her people and even the death of her language, were near at hand, when the classic elegance of Leo shed a transient splendor over her last hours. He died but fiften years before her fall.

But interesting as are the sermons of Leo, his letters are the

most valuable part of his works. In these we see the man fully developed, and read the history of his eventful life. We are not however to look for anything like the correspondence of Cicero or of Cowper in them. They are rather the diplomatic correspondence of one who assumed to himself the prerogatives of the earthly head of the church, the defender of faith and order, and the spiritual adviser and counsellor of emperors and kings. Such too was his influence, that he was consulted and courted, even by those who did not concede the validity of his claims. Hence his letters are filled with theological discussions, responses to questions concerning cases of conscience, decisions as to the discipline, festivals and order of the church, denunciations of such councils or canons as he does not approve, and the earnest advocacy of such as he sees fit to regard as sound and orthodox.

It seems to be admitted on all sides that his style is uncommonly finished and rhetorical, and that his Latinity is unusually pure for the age. But the Roman Catholic author of his life prefixed to his works, exalts him beyond all bounds. He calls him the Christian Demosthenes, the ecclesiastical Cicero, the Homer of theology, the Aristotle of divine philosophy, the Peter of the pontifical throne, and the Paul of the sacred desk. But pope Nicholas the first, a man in the image of Leo, sets forth his doctrinal services to the church in the following lofty style. "In the Ephesinian synod of robbers, all the bishops and even the patriarchs fell from the faith. Then unless Leo the Great, following in the steps of him concerning whom it is said the Lion (Leo) of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed,' divinely inspired had uttered his voice, shaken emperors, and the world, and turned them back to piety, the religion of Christ had utterly perished."

Such is Leo to the Romanists. We dissent of course from their extravagance; nor can we regard him as in any sense the head of the church, yet no one can study his life and works, and not feel that he was one of the few men of power who mark and control the age in which they live. His position also and relations were such that his life and times cannot be thoroughly studied without great interest and permanent benefit. As the despotism that he helped to found is fast drawing near to its close, it cannot be without both interest and profit to study the manner in which its foundations were laid. As the doctrine of the incarnate nature and character of Christ is exciting new interest, a careful study of the earliest controversies on the subject cannot but richly reward the diligent student.

To what extent God overruled for good the existence of the centralizing and organizing power of the church of Rome, during the ages of ignorance, brutalism and general social dissolution that followed the downfall of the Western empire, our present limits will not permit us to inquire. Whatever the truth may be, Leo

contributed largely to whatever good or evil has flowed to the world from that tremendous ecclesiastical corporation.

To her system of pious fraud, and her unexampled and bloody persecutions even Guizot ascribes no good influence. In these respects therefore tremendous evils, unmixed with good, can be directly traced to Leo.

On the whole his efforts to vindicate the true doctrine of the incarnation of Christ, may be justly regarded as of all his acts least injurious in his own age, and as most permanently beneficial to the interests of mankind.

ARTICLE II.

THE PROVINCE OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.

By Rev. MASON GROSVENOR, Springfield, Mass.

In a review of Prof. Finney's Systematic Theology in a recent number of one of our leading Theological Reviews', this subject is discussed at considerable length. Dissenting from the views therein expressed, and believing that the subject is intimately related to sound theology, we venture on some remarks in regard to it. This writer censures Mr. Finney for giving philosophy the lead in his investigations. He thinks that in so doing he greatly disregards the authority of the Bible. We are not disposed to deny that Mr. F's. assertions in regard to the validity of the deductions of reason, and, perhaps his confidence in them are open to censure. Our remarks however will have no reference to the errors of Mr. Finney, but to the opinions of the reviewer upon Philosophy as it stands related to Revelation. His opinion is that the doctrines and facts of the Bible must first be learned without allowing our philosophy to influence or control this investigation. He says (p. 240;) "The true and Christian method is to begin with the doctrines (that is of the Bible) and let them determine our philosophy, and not to begin with our philosophy and allow it to give law to the doctrines." And in accordance with this principle he remarks (p. 242;) "And we confess that when we see a system of theology beginning with moral government we take it for granted that the Bible is to be allowed only a very humble part in its construction." From these remarks and others which might be quoted, it is evident that the reviewer supposes that the true principles of interpreting the Bible do not require any previous correct philosophical views of the things of which it treats,-that a man can

Biblical Repertory, Princeton, April, 1847.

a rive at a full understanding of revealed truth, let his philosophy be what it may, or whether he has any or not. For, however destitute he may be of philosophy or erroneous in his philosophical views, he must not begin with philosophy to obtain correct views in theology. The only "true and Christian method is to begin with the doctrines of Revelation," for they are so plainly stated that he will be likely to understand them whatever may be his philosophy. And if, in the progress of his inquiries, the doctrines of the Bible, thus interpreted, conflict with the philosophical conclusions to which his own understanding would lead him (and he anticipates they may) then the former must be assumed to be true and as he says "must determine our philosophy." Or as he says (p. 241,) such a man "will be constrained to make his philosophy agree with his theology." And thus the conclusions of philosophy must be forced to yield; not because they are proved to be false; but simply because they conflict with his interpretation of the doctrines of the Bible. The opposite method requires that every search after revealed truth should begin with an accurate knowledge, so far as practicable, of those elementary things treated in the Bible and be modified and controlled by it, which is true philosophy. Thus the conclusions on both these fields of investigation, when legitimately obtained will be harmonious. We shall offer some reasons for the correctness of the latter method and for the incorrectness of the former.

Our first reason for adopting this method is, that Natare is an elementary book of truth, written by the hand of God. Many persons seem to regard philosophy as some profane work, necessarily opposed to God and to revealed truth; as if it originated with devils, or with men made like them, which if a man reads or studies at all, he must be erroneous on all Divine and sacred subjects, if not corrupt in character. We are fully aware that there are, and have been systems, called philosophical systems, which are dangerous, full of error, opposed to God and to truth; and which if they did not originate with devils, originated with men of near kindred to them. But what have these false systems to do with true Christian philosophy? Is all philosophy necessarily erroneous and dangerous because they are? The reviewer's objections are not directed against the false and heathenish systems, but against true philosophy studied by a Christian theologian as necessary to a full and correct investigation of revealed truth. As such it is the study of Nature-this elementary work of God -no less a book of truth than revelation itself. Nature is only the substantial forms of idealities. Here the ideals which eternally existed in the mind of the Deity are put into actual existence, so that they can be cognized as having reality. Nature is thus the embodiment of truth written by the finger of God for man to study. There are no things in the Bible. It is a description of