ERNESTI, John Augustus, one of the most illustrious philologers and theologians of the last century. He was ornon the 4th August 1707, at Tennstadt, of which place is father, likewise a distinguished theologian, was pastor, and superintendent of the electoral dioceses of Thuringia, az, and Sangerhusen. After having received his first ins ruction in the learned languages, under the domestic dis-tip me of his father, and in the gymnasium of his native , 0 " n > he was sent at the age of sixteen to the celebrated axon cloister school of Pforta. Here he continued four J ears. At the age of twenty he entered the university of Wittemberg, where he studied eloquence and ancient life rature under the celebrated Berger, theology under Wernsdorf, and the Wolfian philosophy under Schlosser. From Wittemberg he passed to the university of Leipsig, where he applied himself to the mathematical sciences under Hausen, following the courses of Boerner and Deyling on theology, and the lectures of Gottsched on German eloquence. In 1730 he was made master in the faculty of philosophy. In the following year he accepted the office of conrector in the T homan school of Leipsig, of which J. M , . Gesner was then rector; and on Gesner’s vocation, as professor of eloquence, to Göttingen, he succeeded him as rector. In this situation, by his erudition, diligence, and the elegance of his methods, he surpassed all his contemporaries, and created an epoch in Germany for the study of the ancient authors. From this office, in opposition to the present custom, which precludes a translation into the universities to the masters of the subordinate schools, he was, in 1742, named as extraordinary professor of ancient literature in the university of Leipsig, and in 1756 promoted to the ordinary professorship of eloquence. In both these chairs he kne¶v how to combine more intellect, philosophy, and taste, than had been done by any of his predecessors. His reputation as a scholar, and his rational treatment of the biblical exegesis, paved the way for his entrance into the theological faculty. Through the elegance of his learning, and his manner of discussion, he co-operated with Baumgarten of Halle in disengaging dogmatic theology from the scholastic and mystical excrescences with which it was then deformed; and thereby contributed greatly to the new revolution in theology, although he himself never deyiated from the ancient system. In these deserving labours, and with unbroken health, he attained an honourable old age; and died, after a short illness, in his seventy-sixth year, on 11th September 1781.

Whether Ernesti be considered as a philologer or theologian, it is perhaps as much from the impulsion which he gave to sacred and profane criticism in Germany, as from the intrinsic excellence of his own works in either department, that he must derive his reputation. With Gesner, he instituted a new school in ancient literature; and, after Crocus, Melanchthon, and Camerarius, has been perhaps the greatest reformer and promoter of classical learning in Germany. With Semler he partially co-operated in the great revolution of Lutheran theology; though he is guiltless of all participation in the deductions which many of those who profess themselves his disciples have drawn from the principles which he established.

An enthusiastic and enlightened study of the ancient Greek and Roman authors is the well-merited boast of the present German literature. This commenced, in its existing form, towards the middle of the last century. Not that Germany, before that period, had neglected ancient literature, or could not enumerate her proportion among the great names of classical erudition. No nation, in fact, had produced so many, or more illustrious, scholars immediately after the Reformation; but for a long time polite literature had become deformed, if not neglected, in proportion as religious wars and polemical theology had exhausted and engrossed her governments and universities. The German scholars were chiefly theologians, and theologians who had studied every thing in reference to their peculiar profession. Add to this, that the most disgusting and inefficient methods had been introduced, whereby the spirit of the instruction was at utter variance with the object of the study. Accordingly, during the whole of the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth century, Germany was far excelled by Holland in the number and excellence of her nhilologers; and it was not until the appearance[7:9:362] of Gesner and Ernesti, with their somewhat earlier contemporaries, Cortius, Daniel Longolius, and Michael Heusinger, that she could oppose above one or two rivals to the great critics of the Dutch schools. Gesner and Ernesti, however, through the influence of their lectures at the greater universities of Göttingen and Leipsig, through the wider extent of their labours in philology, and still more through the greater excellence of their methods, are alone entitled to be held the founders of the new German school of ancient literature. Both excelled their philological countrymen in taste, in the elegance of their Latin style, in a philosophical spirit, and in a wider acquaintance with the subsidiary branches of erudition. Both made an advantageous use of their critical knowledge of the languages; both looked at once to the words and to the subject of the ancient writers, established and applied the rules of a legitimate interpretation, and carefully analysed the meaning as well as the form of the expression. Both contributed effectually to expel the old absurd and disgusting methods of instruction from the schools and universities, and to introduce an improved and more effectual system. To the epoch whfch they formed, many circumstances indeed contributed :—their acquaintance with the Dutch criticism; the universal enthusiasm of the Germans for establishing a national literature, and for becoming at the same time reformers in the departments of ancient learning; and withal the spirit of philosophy which at that period in Germany began more and more to blend itself with every part of science and literature. It is also true that their editions do not possess the complement of erudition and criticism which distinguish those of many of their contemporaries; their commentaries have the precision, but how inferior are they in certainty, copiousness, and depth of illustration, to those of the philologers of Holland? In their editions of the Latin classics, they returned back to the somewhat inconvenient method of Cellarius, collecting their principal illustrations into an Index Rerum et Verborum, as is done by Gesner in his Quintilian, and by Ernesti in his Cicero ; not, however, that they did not possess the means of illustrating their author with a rich critical and philological commentary, of which the former has given ample proof in his editions of the Scriptores de Re Rustica, and in his Claudian, and the latter in his two most valuable labours, his Suetonius and Tacitus. Both, but especially Ernesti, have detected grammatical niceties in the Latin tongue, which had escaped all preceding critics; such, among others, are the use of the subjunctive mood after the pronoun qui, and the legitimate consecution of the tenses. His canons are, however, not without exceptions. As an editor of the Greek classics, Ernesti deserves hardly to be named beside his Dutch contemporaries, Hemsterhuis, Valkenaer, Ruhnken, or his colleague and enemy the learned and unfortunate Reiske. How insignificant are his own labours in his editions of Homer and Callimachus? In regard to the higher criticism, it was not even attempted by Ernesti. But to him and to Gesner the peculiar praise is owing of having formed, partly by their discipline, and partly by their example, philologers greater than themselves; and to them is due the honour of having so strongly excited in Germany that enthusiasm for ancient learning, which has now, unfortunately, no parallel, in the other countries of Europe.

As a theologian, Lrnesti is far less conspicuous than as a scholar, and his influence not so marked 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 development of the human mind. At this date, accordingly, the theologians of Germany had begun to disregard the nonconformity of their doctrines with the formula of the Lutheran 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 encouraged, by the governments in their different universities, every one was at perfect liberty, without any derogation from his character as a clergyman or instmctor, to maintain and promulgate what opinions in religion he chose; and it must be acknowledged that the theologians have made, and are still making, ex cry use and abuse of this license, and have arrived at every conclusion that piety and learning, as well as presumption, folly, and irréligion can suggest. It was at the commencement of this important era that Ernesti flourished as a theologian.

Of the three sciences subsidiary to theology, philosophy, history, and 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 orthodox and even sacred. In the grammatical interpretation of the New Testament some imperfect progress had been made by Bengel; but the new epoch in the biblical exegesis commences with John David Michaelis for the Old, and with Ernesti for the New Testament. It is, indeed, chiefly in hermeneutic that Ernesti has any claim to the character of a great theologian. But here his merits arc distinguished, and, at the period when his Institutio Interpretis N. T. was published, almost peculiar to himself. He applied himself to the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, after a long and familiar acquaintance with the Greek and Roman writers, and when formed 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 precision, the pregnant brevity, the elegance and simplicity, in which they are expressed,—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 Wolfian, to which Ernesti was attached; but consisting of observations and rules, which, though already enunciated, 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, convertible into 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 θ t the Scriptures, refer every thing to the illumination of the Holy Spirit ;· as well as that of others who, in contempt 0 all knowledge of the languages, would explain words by things, and thus introduce into the holy writings their peculiar glosses and opinions. The analogy of faith, as t 3 rule of interpretation, he greatly limits, and teaches that it [7:9:363]can never alone afford the explanation of words, but only determine the choice among their possible significations, a ∏d must always stand in need of philology as an assistant. The spirit of Ernesti’s interpretation gives no countenance, however, to the results which many of his followers have deduced from the grammatical and historical exegeses. Every 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 Interpres, and the relative Acroases of Morus. In the higher criticism of the sacred books Ernesti did nothing. In dogmatic he always expressed great contempt of strict systematic theology; and though he lectured for many years on the Aphorisms of Neumann, it was rather in refutation than in support of his text-book.

Among his works the following are the more important:

I. In profane literature:

Initia Doctrines Solidioris, 1736, 8vo; many subsequent editions. A work not only valuable by reason of the real excellence of the matter, but more particularly deserving an attentive study, on account of the purity of the Latin, in discussing subjects of philosophy known only to the moderns.

Initia Rhetorica, 1730.

Xenophontis Memorabilia Socratis, cum notis, 1737; often reprinted.

Ciceronis Opera cum clave, 1737; 2d edit. FIalae, 1757; 3d edit. ibid. 1776, 8vo, 6 vols.

Suetonius cum Animadversionibus, 1748; 2d edit. 1775-8.

Taeiti Opera cum notis J. Lipsii, Jo. Er. Gronovii et suis, 1752; 2d edit. 1772; 8vo. Another edition, with many additions and improvements, has been procured by Oberlin.

Aristophanis Nubes cum Scholiis Antiquis et proefatione, 1754, 8vo.

Corradi Quaestura cum proefatione, 1754, 8vo. SeeWyt-tenbach in his Vita Ruhnlιenii. Hed&rici Lexico Groecum, multis Vocabulorum millibus Αueturn, 1754-67, 8vo.

Homeri Opera Omnia, ex Recensione, et cum Notis Sam. Clarhii, accessit Varietas Lectionum MS. Lips, et Edit. Vet. cura J. A. E. qui et suas Notas adspersit, 1759-64, 5 vols. 8vo.

Callimachi Hymni et Epigrammata, cum Notis Var. Latine vertit atque Notis adjecit. Lugd. Bat. 1761, 8vo, 2 vols.

Polybius eum Notis Var. Proefationem et Glossarium Polybianurn adjecit. Viennae et Lips. 1764, 3 vols. 8vo.

Arehaeologia Litteraria, 1768. A new and improved edition by Martini.

Horatius Tursellinus de Particulis, 1769, 8vo.

Fabricii Bibliotheca Latina nunc melius delecta, rectius diyesta et aueta, vol. i. and ii. 1773; vol. iii. 1774, 8vo, unfinished.

II. In sacred literature:

Antimuratorius sive Confutatio Disputationis Muratori-anae de rebus Liturgicis, 1755—58.

Neue Theologische Bibliothek, vol. i. to x. 1760-69, 8vo.

Institutio Interpretis Nov. Test. 1761, reprinted in the 9ame year at Leyden; 2d edit. 1765; 3d edit. 1775; 8vo.

Neueste Theologische Bibliothek, no\. i. to x. 1771-75, 8vo. Besides these, he published above a hundred smaller works in the form of prefaces, academical dissertations, programmata, memoriae, elogia, epistles, orations, translations, &c. Many of these have been collected in the three 1° Jθ2 v i n g publications:— Opuscula Oratoria, Lugd. Bat.

6'~; 2d edit. 1767; 8vo. Opuscula Philologica ct Cri-ιcα, .Lugd. Bat. 1764; 2d edit. 1776; 8vo. Opuscula The-οtoyica, Lips. 1773, 8vo.