dermining plenary inspiration, is, we take leave to add, not only illogical, but a championship on the side of error which deserves rebuke. Granting that he has lighted on a truth in reference to the organic growth and connection of Scripture, does that warrant him to turn it against the authority of Scripture itself, which God gave, indeed, at sundry times, and in diverse manners, and with increasing light, but with divine and supreme authority? Such a termination to his paper is like a rocket going out in darkness. It tastes of Schleiermacher, who makes Scripture the utterance of the Christian consciousness, not authoritative revelation.-Another paper, with the title, "Einige Bemerkungen zu der Schrift von J. H. Kurtz die Einheit der Genesis,"" is from the pen of Tiele, who himself published a learned commentary on Genesis in 1836, and here canvasses the work of Kurtz with much ability. Acknowledging the excellence of Kurtz's work, and the refutation given in it to various objections made to the unity of Genesis, he proceeds to strike down two untenable positions by which Kurtz has sought to establish his point. The two positions which Kurtz laid down, were that there is a difference in idea between the names Jehovah and Elohim, and the alleged division of Genesis into ten nin. Tiele impugns them both, and expresses himself as constrained by his exegetical conscience to enter his protest against both. With regard to the first position, that such a distinction obtains between Jehovah and Elohim, that where one stands the other could not stand without altering the sense, he says that since Ewald's exposition of Genesis, and Hengstenberg's Essay on the Names of God, this idea has found so great consent that it appears almost a heresy to contradict it. He admits that there is a difference, but so subtle and so evanescent that it only seldom comes out. Though Hengstenberg and Kurtz set out on the principle that a difference can be discovered, they come to conclusions directly opposite to one another; and Tiele maintains that the words are used promiscuously. As to the other position, it is shown to be incorrect, far-fetched, only marring a simple view of the unity of Genesis. There follow papers on the date of the composition of the Epistle of James; on the life of Friedrich Perthes, the well-known publisher of Hamburg; on the allowableness of the Christian oath; and a review of Thenius on the Books of Kings. A paper, however, with the title, "über die dermalige Gleichgültigkeit gegen alles philosophische Streben und über die im werk begriffene Gesammtausgabe der Schriften von Franz Baader," demands our notice, because it announces that there never was a period when philosophy was exposed to such indifference as at present. The theologian, the jurist, the physician, contemptuously turn their back upon it. It is well-known, says the writer, that at one time the logical enthusiasm was so great, that the productions of Goethe and Schiller were not so joyfully hailed as the writings of Fichte. Such a complete reaction has set in, that at present only one philosophical journal exists, and drags out a sorry existence. Men have with one consent turned away from mere strawthreshing; and the writer, Dr Hamberger of Munich, is afraid that the contempt may go too far, and disregard every thing ideal. He says that in the present state of things no systems can be regarded as satisfactory to which attaches the character of mere formalism, and which, instead of entering into the essence of things and into their inner con

nection, move in bare schemes, in bald abstractions. A second requirement is that any system which is to deserve a more general respect, must not belong to the mere school, but follow one into life and not stand in cutting contrast to it. A third mark of true philosophy is that it not only stands at no point in contradiction to outward and inward experience, but partly solves the enigma of existence, partly satisfies the want of the human mind, and consequently is not merely penetrated by a moral spirit, but places us on no lower standing-point than Christianity presents. The writer finds these criteria or conditions fulfilled in the philosophical writings of Francis Baader, which are being published in a collected form. Baader, who was born at Munich in 1765, and died at the same place in 1841, was not, as has been often said, a scholar of Schelling. He assumed a philosophical standing-point essentially different, and maintained it to the end of his life; while Schelling towards the close only approximated towards it, without ever reaching it. Baader appeared as a writer about ten years earlier than Schelling, but could not succeed during his lifetime in obtaining the recognition of his system. One reason of this was, that the world was not prepared for the reception of his views, and besides, he wanted the gift of eloquence and of outward systematic development. Yet he won for himself in all countries of Europe no insignificant number of grateful pupils and adherents. Schelling, Hegel, Goethe, Schlegel, all testified their admiration and respect. His writings not only range over the departments of metaphysics, anthropology, ethics, political economy, religious philosophy, but over many other fields, and supply elucidations of Thomas Aquinas, Eckart, Tauler, Jacob Böhme, and are wholly of a conservative, not destructive kind.

In the subsequent Numbers, one paper is a very learned essay by Bleek, on the age of Zech. chap. ix. xiv., in which he maintains that that whole passage, which, in connection with Matt. xxvii. 9, has given such trouble to commentators, belongs to a period before the captivity. Another paper, of a very spiritual cast, breathing much communion with Christ, though somewhat too subjective, is an essay on the ἔργον τοῦ Θεοῦ and πίστις in their mutual relation, by Luthart, Repetent at Erlangen. Then follows a review, by Professor Shoeberlein of Heidelberg, of Martensen's Christian Dogmatics, full of calm, spiritual religion, and of deep love to Christ; but with all its beauty, and full delineation of Christ within, partly defective and partly erroneous on all the objective doctrines connected with divine justice and the atonement. Then follows an account of the fourth Kirchentag. Then we have Lange on the Contemplation of Nature, from the Christological point of view; Rinck on the Origin of Evil; Gumpach on the Taxing or Census, with reference to Strauss; Dörtenbach on the Method of Dogmengeschichte, or history of doctrines; Staib on the Act of Creation and the Image of God; Ullmann on the Reformatory Character of the Author of the German Theology, one of the mystic writers much admired by Luther; Köster on Inspiration, which is lax and dangerous; and Süskind on the demand of Private Confession before the Supper.

But we notice only further, Ullmann's paper on the Essence of Christianity and Mystik. A French translation of Ullmann's well-known VOL. II.-NO. I.

R

essay on the Essence of Christianity, recently published, had been noticed in all the Protestant periodicals of France with different measures of approbation, but was attacked by Gasparin with great severity. Ullmann defends himself in this paper with much mildness, and deprecates these attacks on German views. The tone, at least, of his reply is a model; but whether he has kept his ground against the weighty objections of the zealous and devoted French count, is another question. Gasparin charges him with mysticism, and Ullmann here replies, that in Germany such a name is not one of reproach; that in this department their historical studies had taught them to separate the healthy from the morbid; and that they were only so far mystics as the ground of this lies in certain elements of Christianity which proceeded from Christ and his apostles. It is, he proceeds to say, otherwise in France. In this point, there is in general a very remarkable difference between the Germanic and the Romanic spirit. While the latter has a tendency to dissipate itself in the things of outward life, the former is disposed to recollection in itself, and turns to the inner life. This, he adds, expresses itself historically in those great formation-periods of the Christian life and thought, in which nationality discovers itself as a co-operating factor. Already in the middle ages the two main tendencies of theology were so divided, that the exclusively Latinspeaking scholasticism, which had its chief seat in Paris, may be regarded as a product of the Romanic spirit; while mystik, on the other hand, which spoke directly to the people's heart in the language of the people, and which had its cradle chiefly in the great valley of the German Rhine, must be regarded as a product of the German spirit. The same relation, though differently formed, meets us in the Reformation, and from its leaders has passed over to the churches founded by them. Indeed, there were not wanting, as may be proved by abundance of examples, mystic elements in Calvin, and, on the other side, Luther is not to be called a mystic in the narrow sense. But this, however, is certain, Luther grew up decidedly from the root of mystik— Tauler, Gerson, German theology, Staupitz and has richly fostered the mystic element in his theology; while Calvin did not form himself under the influence of mystik, and laid at the foundation of his whole theology rather the view of man's absolute dependence on God than the union of man with God. This has naturally continued to work in the doctrinal development of the two churches. Ullmann then shows what is Gasparin's idea of mysticism, and draws a distinction between mystik and mysticism. Gasparin lays down these five marks by which mysticism may be known:-1. Mysticism raises an opposition between dogma and love. 2. It accords to all religious doctrines, without regard to their Scripture truth, a sort of right. 3. Particularly it applies to the questions of the church this principle of indifferentism and neglect of the biblical rule. 4. It more or less puts in the place of the atonement by the blood of Christ the unity of God and man in the person of Christ. 5. It subordinates in all things the authority of Scripture, and will have men to rely more on what they feel than on what they read. To all these criteria in order, Ullmann alludes in an apologetic qualifying manner, without being able altogether to deny their correctness, but, at the same time, it must be added, with a learning which his intimate acquaintance with this particular school of writers enables him to wield at will.

MISCELLANIES.

I. THE MANUSCRIPTS OF PRESIDENT EDWARDS.*

Few things in literary and theological history are more interesting than the examination of the manuscripts of the great theologian of New England. We passed some time, not long since, in such an examination, in the study of the Rev. Tryon Edwards, D.D., of New London, who has in his possession nearly all the papers and unpublished writings President Edwards left at his death. Among them was the precious work recently given to the public on Charity and its Fruits. There are other works remaining, quite complete, unpublished; for example, a series of Sermons on the Beatitudes, a work on Revelations, a large Commentary on the whole Bible, containing 904 pages, a leaf of the printed English Bible being interposed between every two sheets. There is also an imperfect harmony of the genius, spirit, doctrines, and rules of the Old Testament and the New,-an immense undertaking, which would have been a prodigious monument of theological learning and wisdom had it been completed. We wish that the work on the Apocalypse might be transcribed and given to the world, and that speedily. Such views of men who gathered their knowledge of sacred things from the prayerful study of the Word of God itself, with the aid of the theological treasures in the works of English theologians and reformers, are invaluable. All the manuscripts of Edwards reveal, in the most interesting manner, his indefatigable industry and thoroughness in the study of the Scriptures, his entire submission of all things to their authority, and the acuteness and power with which he grappled with the subjects in morals and metaphysics that occupied his mind. There are note-books from year to year remaining, some of them filled up during the period when he was engaged in controversy against Arminianism, and in the production of his works on Original Sin and the Freedom of the Will. Some of these note-books, or partial students' diaries, or memorandums of thought and study, reveal, in a curious manner, the scarcity of paper, and the necessity Edwards was under of economising in the use of it. He used to make rough blank-books out of odds and ends, backs of letters, scraps of notes sent in from the congregations; and there is one long parallelogram of a book made entirely out of strips from the margins of the old London Daily Gazetteer of 1743, printed for M. Cooper, at the Globe, in Paternoster Row. It is written close and full, within and without, except the remnants or fringes that had some of the printing retained. There is another most curious manuscript made out of circular scraps of paper, 147 leaves being in the shape of half-moons, intermingled with patterns of caps, and other such-like remnants of housewifery, that after they had served as exponents of the wife's ingenuity and industry in head-gear, answered also for the husband's metaphysics, or first rough sketches of exposition or demonstration, in some of the knottiest questions of theology. On one of these pages we have, first, some rough rotes on "efficacious grace," in the controversy with Whitby and others; and next, a note from a family in the parish, for use in the pulpit, which, having performed its service there, was transferred to Edward's economical note-book and of which the following is a literal copy :

* From the pen of Dr Cheever, in the Independent of December 23, 1852.

"Mr and his wife desier God's name may be praised In this Congregation for his great goodness to them in Restoring three of their children from dangerous sickness to A considerable measure of health."

Such notes of thanksgiving, as well as of prayer, in the midst of blessings or of trials, were the common habit of piety in those days, as indeed they still are in many parts of New England. Sometimes, doubtless, it degenerated into mere form, or an obtrusive particularity; but it was a grateful, simple, old-fashioned observance, excellent when prompted by the spirit, and always bringing before the mind a recognition of God's special providence, perfectly accordant with the teachings of his Word. It seems to be considered that such things may do very well for the country, but are somewhat out of date and fashion in the city.

On the back or margin of such scraps, stitched together for convenience and preservation, and kept lying by him for continual use, to jot down what. ever might be needed, Edwards would place sometimes the catchwords, sometimes the skeletons of thought and argument, during the composition of some of his greatest works. The following extracts from these portemonnaies of his mind may serve as specimens, for Edwards was like a careful farmer who fills a satchel with acorns for his walks, and at every convenient place deposits the seed of a future oak in his plantations :—

"Definition of necessity. Concerning God's foreknowledge. Common sense abuse of words. Incertitude, impossible, moral inability, impossibility, necessity. Definitions. Borrow Stackhouse. They call the act of free-will contingent. See sheets concerning free-will and efficacious grace in the drawer. Borrow Mr Beach's last book. According to Dr Whitby unbelief is never a sin; for he abundantly asserts, &c. This reasoning looks whole and sound at a distance, but it will drop to pieces if you handle it."

This was proved to be the case with most of the plausible reasoning that Edwards took hold upon to handle and examine. The sentence is quite characteristic of the cool and calm manner in which the mighty metaphysician advanced to the analysis of whatever in his judgment would not stand the test of truth. On another page we have memorandums as follows:

"Definitions. Moral necessity. Self-determining power. Contingency. Arminians differ among themselves. Dr Whitby forgot that what God does, &c. Stebbing changes the question, 223: 229. See the SS. [Scriptures] they allege against efficacious grace. Stebbing forgets the one thing, wherein the assistance of the Spirit consists in giving a meek, teachable frame of mind to prepare men for faith in SS. [Scriptures.] See what the Arminians say concerning those Scriptures that speak of sinners as dead in trespasses and sins, blind, having hearts of stone, &c. Stebbing, page 185, &c. Efficacious grace is not inconsistent with freedom. Whitby's exposition of texts relating to effectual grace."

On the other pages we find notes and memorandums as follows, showing that Edwards had frequently to borrow the books his argument led him to consult or notice ::

"Remember to consult the Lime Street Sermons. Remember to borrow Mr Locke's works, his Reasonableness of Christianity and Annotations, to see his notion of Justification by Faith and not by the works of the law, and parti cularly consider and confute it. To confute Dr Watts' notion in the Berry Street Sermons, serm. 13. Election, Particular Redemption, Special Vocation, and Perseverance. See Mrs Dutton's to Mr John Wesley. When God permits, he decrees to permit. If it is no blemish to God to permit sin, then it is no blemish to Him to purpose or intend to permit it. Original Sin. Borrow Dr Barrow's works; also buy or borrow of Dr Johnson or Mr Sergeant, Dr Clarke's Posthumous Sermons, which Dr Johnson speaks of as explaining all texts relating to God's decree of predestination."

It is deeply interesting to look at these disjecta membra in Edward's own