into effect. God has known, God has declared from the beginning of all history, that through all the ages of history this enmity should subsist; but along with this terrible threat there stands also in the beginning the promise, that "the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head." From this view, the first volume proceeds to review all the forms of this enmity against the gospel, from the earliest beathen and Jewish opposers down to Mohammedanism, and thence to the French revolution. In the second volume the different objections to revelation are considered, which are drawn a priori and a posteriori. I ought also here to mention a work which has made some noise, and given some offence, viz. Forster's Mobammedanism unveiled.' The ground idea of the author is good. The object is to show, that Mohammedanism, viewed in reference to the divine plan of the universe, forms a part of this divine plan, viz. an intermediate step between Heathenism and Christianity. But the author alas! has been misled by a perverse literal interpretation of the Old Testament. He regards Mohammedism as the crown of Ismaelism; and hence seeks to show, in the most tedious manner possible, the entire accordance of history with the prophecies respecting Isaac and Ishmael. We come next to Interpretation and Criticism. In these branches little has been done. For the understanding of the Scriptures, we still use chiefly the earlier commentators of this country and of Germany. Since Lowth, there is scarcely any thing to be mentioned, except Blayney on Jeremiah and Zechariah, and Newcome on Ezekiel and the minor prophets; all of which works appeared at the close of the last century. The exegetical works most commonly in the hands of our clergy, are Lowth, Whitby, Hammond, Clark's and Paley's paraphrases; while those who can and will go deeper, take perhaps Chrysostom and Theophylact to their aid. Bishop Horsely, the sharpsighted antagonist of the Socinian Priestley, published a translation of the Psalmns, and some isolated investigations upon the historical books and several of the prophets; the latter were published by his son after his death. The bishop was, without doubt, a very acute scholar; but was nevertheless too hasty, and belonged to the conjectural school of Hutchinson. Much is expected from a new translation of the Psalms by Dr Friend of Cambridge, who has the reputation of being a good orientalist; it will appear shortly. In the department of the New Testament, the exposition of the Apocalypse by Dean Woodhouse makes a pleasing exception from the swarm of literal interpretations of that book, which wholly mistake the character of prophecy. The author has also brought forward some new proofs in behalf of the genuineness of the Apocalypse. Many a good interpretation is also found in the Lectures upon Acts, by Bishop Blomfield; in other respects a popular work. Criticism is at rest, ever since the notes of Marsh on Michaelis. Hug, as you know, has been translated into English; but unfortunately the translator, Dr Wait, who otherwise is a good orientalist, has only here and there pointed out the inaccuracies or strained theories of Hug. Dr Wait moreover was not sufficiently acquainted with the German. His own notes are chiefly illustrations from Jewish and oriental antiquities, which do not strictly belong to the subject. Besides this, he corrects what Hug has said of the Basmuric version, as also of the Sclavonic, Servian, and Georgian versions, and of Professor Lee's edition of the Svriac New Testament. Professor Lee is now occupied with the collation of all the Syriac manuscripts of the New Testament which are found in England. The Oriental Translation Society are to publish this work. The translator of Schleiermacher's Essay on Luke, has prefixed to the work a clear and critical exposition of the various theories respecting the origin of the Gospels, from the time of Michaelis onward; in which exposition is also included the investigation of a pious and excellent Englishman, Veysie, respecting Marsh's hypothesis, published in 1808. It is singular that Veysie accords with Schleiermacher in this, that the basis of our gospel history consists of several narratives; which, however, according to the English critic, proceeded immediately from the apostles; but according to the German critic, only mediately. The old theory, that Matthew was used by Mark, and both again by Luke, has found a new defender in Creswell, in his Harmony of the Evangelists, Oxford, 1830. The author has gone wholly to the original sources; I have not as yet studied his work, but I hear from various quarters, that it is full of learning. Among us the text of Griesbach is entirely current. Bishop Marsh adopted it absolutely; though our Greek philologist Gaisford rejects it. In 1815 appeared also against it the work of Nolan, 'Enquiry into the Integrity of the Received Text of the New Testament,' which undertakes to defend the authority of the Byzantine text and of the Brescian manuscripts of the Itala. The work however rests upon arbitrary assumptions. In respect to the criticism of the Old Testament, I know of nothing to mention, except a re-impression of Walton's Prolegomena with Dathe's notes. In regard to Doctrinal Theology, our efforts are all directed to the exposition of the Symbola and of the thirty-nine articles of the English church. We still study Jackson, King, and Pearson, on the apostolic creed, and Bennet on the thirty-nine articles. Our earlier sermons also contain rich doctrinal treasures, which are still much used; as the sermons of Andrews, Allestree, Taylor, etc. New works in this department are occasioned only by the controversies with Anti-Trinitarians, Papists, and Calvinists. Against the former, we have the work of Archbishop Magee on the Atonement,-a very learned work, but unfortunately most wretchedly arranged. It consists of three octavo volumes, containing only dissertations on two sermons, which fill but 65 pages. The learned work of Dr Burton abovementoned, is the result of a long and careful study of the Ante-Nicene fathers. It follows in general the order of time, and specifies under each father what he says in favour of the divinity of the Saviour. I will here just give the note where the author shows, that Griesbach's remarks on the reading xxλnoia Tou Dεov, Acts 20: 28, are not wholly correct. Griesbach asserts, that some of the earlier fathers, and among them Athanasius, directly denied that the expression alua rou εou occurs in Scripture. Burton shews not only the contrary in reference to other fathers, viz. that they often used the expression aiμa drov, but also that Athanasius himself often employed this expression. In the passage referred to by Griesbach, but incorrectly quoted by him, it is said : οὐδαμοῦ δὲ αἷμα θεοῦ δίχα σαρκὸς παραδεδώκασι αἱ γράφαι — αἱ δὲ γράφει ἐν σαρκὶ Θεοῦ καὶ σαρκὸς θεοῦ ἀνθρώπου γενομένου αἷμα καὶ πάθος καὶ ἀνάστασιν κηρύτ τουσι σώματος θεοῦ. The most ancient manuscripts of the Syriac version, which Prof. Lee has collated, have likewise the reading ou. The late bishop Heber published, while still young, his Bampton Lectures on the personality of the Holy Spirit. They are skilfully written, as was to be expected; but the subject was too difficult for his age at the time. -- In the controversy with the Romish church, the most important works are those of Marsh and Blanco White, which have also been translated into German.-Against the Calvinists we have received many not unimportant works. Among the most important are Laurence's 'Bampton Lectures on the Articles of the English Church, falsely called Calvinistic;' and the quarto work of Copleston on Predestination. Sumner on the Apostolical Office, and Whately on the Difficulties in the writings of St. Paul, give a clear exposition of the doctrines of the apostle. This latter book was intended for the younger clergy; many of whom among us, through fear of falling into Calvinism, hold themselves entirely aloof from Paul's writings; and the object of it is to excite them to the study of this apostle. ART. VI. FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE. 1.Extracts from a Letter to the Editor from the Rev. J. B. PUSEY, Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford, Eng.* MY DEAR SIR, CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD, JAN. 19, 1832. I am truly sorry to have to begin my correspondence with an apology for the long delay which has been allowed to intervene before its commencement. You will, however, I trust, have ascribed it to any other grounds, rather than to a want of interest in the share which you are taking in our great and common cause. Indeed I have been looking with anxiety to America, ever since I learnt to what extent the education of your young divines was carried on in Germany; and especially since I thought I saw, in some, a tendency to be dazzled by the theories of the rationalist divines. I felt anxious, therefore, not only for my own country, since American literature must assuredly one day exercise a considerable influence amongst us, and German literature would at once be Anglicized, but because English America forms in itself so large a portion of the church of Christ. It was therefore with great joy, that I heard of your efforts, and of your having engaged in the same sort of undertaking which I had once proposed to myself; that of separating the wheat from the chaff of German theology, and so, by supplying the fair requisitions of theological students, to prevent the introduction of the evil combined with it. Had I then had no * See the Preliminary Notice on p. 568 above. thing to do, but to express my deep pleasure at the undertaking of yourself and your colleagues, I should have lost no time in so doing. In order, however, in any degree to discharge the duty of giving an account of the theological education of this country, I wished first to see the plan of your work. * I hope in the course of the present year to send you my lamented friend and predecessor Dr Nicoll's Catalogue of the Bodleian Arabic Manuscripts, the concluding part of which I am carrying through the press. His learning was very first rate, and he is an irreparable loss to us. When I have done this task, and the very intellectual process of index-arranging to Uri's mass of confusion, I hope to set about the examination of our manuscript treasures for myself; and, if I live, I shall have great pleasure in sending you the results. I hope to see an increasing friendly intercourse between like-minded theologians in our two countries. I have not sent you my two publications on German theology; because, with the advantage of continued intercourse with Professor Tholuck, you doubtless know much more about it than myself. It is a problem of immense interest and importance to solve, how Germany, from having been, in appearance at least, sound, became, by a rapid change and to a fearful extent, an unbelieving church. It is a subject of deep interest to ascertain, if it may be, what end, if any beyond example, was intended by this temporary victory of evil,—what end it is to serve in God's dispensations with his church here. It is a strange phenomenon, that to publications which in England produced but little effect,-those of the English and French deists,-so large an influence is now historically ascribed in the extension of unbelief in Germany. This single fact gives a certain probability to the supposition, that it was the nature of the soil alone, which gave these weeds their speedy growth. I was startled when Neander, on my asking him to what he ascribed the progress of unbelief in Germany, said, "the dead orthodoxy." I was much prejudiced, at first, against the opinion; but came at last to no other result. I have been sadly misconceived in England, by some; but the first publication was written too hastily, and was far too brief for its purpose. * * Wishing you, and those who labour with you, all success and blessing, I remain ever yours, most truly and faithfully. J. B. PUSET. |