JOHN AUGUSTUS, one of the most illustrious philologers and theologians of the last century. He was born Aug. 4, 1707, at Temnstadt, of which place his father, likewise a distinguished theologian, was pastor, and superintendent of the electoral dioceses of Thuringia, Salz, and Sangerhausen. After having received his first instruction in the learned languages under the domestic discipline of his father, and in the gymnasium of his native town, he was sent at the age of sixteen to the celebrated Saxon At the age of twenty he entered the university of Wittenberg, where he studied eloquence and ancient literature under the celebrated Berger, theology under Wernsdorf, and the Wolfian philosophy under Schlosser. From Wittenberg he passed to the university of Leipzig, where he applied himself to the mathematical sciences under Hansen, 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 corrector in the Thomian school of Leipzig, of which J. M. Gesner was then rector; and on Gesner's vocation, as professor of eloquence, to Göttingen, he succeeded him as rector. He was, in 1742, named extraordinary professor of ancient literature in the university of Leipzig, and in 1756 promoted to the ordinary professorship of eloquence. Here 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 thus paved the way for a revolution in theology. 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, Sept. 11, 1781.

As a philologist or theologian, it is perhaps as much from the impulse which Ernesti 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 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.

From the Reformation down to the latter half of the eighteenth century, Germany was far excelled by Holland in the number and excellence of her philologists; and it was not until the appearance 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 Leipzig, through the wider extent of their labours in philology, and still more through the greater excellence of their methods, are entitled to be held the founders of the new German school of ancient literature. 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 quia, 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, philologists greater than themselves; and to them is due the honour of having kindled the national enthusiasm for ancient learning.

As a theologian, Ernesti is far less conspicuous than as a scholar, and his influence not so marked either on his contemporaries or on his successors. He began his career when the Spenerian pietism had been almost banished from the Lutheran theology; when to the study of theology, philosophy had been imperfectly applied, and without any interesting result, by Baumgarten, a scholar of Wolf; and 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 hermeneutics that Ernesti has any claim to the character of a great theologian. But here his merits are distinguished, and, at the period when his *Institutio Interpretis Novi Test.* was published, almost peculiar to himself. In it we find the principles of a general interpretation, formed 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 as in the classics only one acceptation, and that the grammatical, convertible into and the same with the logical and historical. He therefore justly censures the opinion of those who, in the illustration of the Scriptures, refer everything to the illumination of the Holy Spirit; as well as that of others who, disregarding 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 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 significations, and 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 *Interpretis,* and the relative *Acrostiches de Morae.* 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 classical literature: *Initia Doctrinae Solidioris,* 1738, 8vo; many subsequent editions; *Initia Rhetorica,* 1730; *Xenophonis Memorabilia Socratica, cum notis,* 1737, often reprinted; *Cicero's Opera cum clase,* 3d ed., 1776; *Suetonius cum Annotacionibus,* 2d ed., 1775–8; *Tacitus Opera cum notis J. Lipsii,* Jo. Fr. Groenewald et al., 2d ed., 1772; *Arrianusque Nubium cum Scholiis Antiquis et prolatiis,* 1754, 8vo; *Corvallis Quaestoria cum prolatiis,* 1754, 8vo; *Hedelici Lexicon Graecum, multos Vocabulorum milium Auctum,* 1754–67, 8vo; *Caesaris Opera Omnia, ex Recensione, et cum Notis Sam. Clarkii,* ac coram Vaticano Lectionum MS. Lipsi, et Edit. Vet. cura J. A. E. qui et suas Notas adpensavit,* 1760–64, 5 vols., 8vo; *Callimachi Hymni et Epigrammata cum Notis Kar. Baurii,* Lipsiae, 1761, 8vo; *Pindarum Poemata adjecta,* Lugd. Bat. 1761, 8vo, 2 vols.; *Poliphilus cum Notis Var. Profectionum et Glossariorum Poliphiliana adjectis,* Vienne et Lipsi, 1764, 3 vols., 8vo; *Archologiae Litterariae,* 1768, a new and improved edition by Martin; *Horatius Turcicola de Particulis,* 1769, 8vo; *Fabricii Bibliotheca Latina nunc melius deleta, rectius disposita et aucta,* vol. i. and ii. 1773, vol. iii. 1774, 8vo, unfinished. II. In sacred literature: *Antimuratoriae sine Confinibus Disputationes Muratoriumae de rebus Liturgicis,* 1765–58; *Neue Theologische Bibliothek,* vol. i. to x. 1760–69, 8vo; *Institutio Interpretis Novi Test.*, 3d ed., 1775, 8vo; *Neueste Theologische Bibliothek,* vol. 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 following publications:—*Opuscula Oratoriae,* Lugd. Bat. 1762,

Augustus Wilhelm (1733–1801), the nephew of the preceding, was professor of philosophy at Leipzig, and afterwards succeeded his uncle in the chair of eloquence in that city. He is principally known from his edition of Livy. He was in turn succeeded by his cousin Johann Christian Theophilus (1756–1802), who published amongst other works a Lexicon Technologiae Graecae Rhetoricae; Lex. Tech. Romanorum Rhetorice, a translation of Dumas's Latin Synonyms, and of several of Cicero's works.