cension of the Four Gospels in Syriac hitherto unknown in Europe." With the Syriac Text Dr. Cureton has furnished a translation, attaining as far as possible the literal equivalent of the Syriac words in their own order. This version Dr. Cureton holds to be perhaps the nearest approximation to the very vernacular of the Saviour and his apostles. Nay it may be in the main the original Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew!

The article on Dr. Cureton's Syriac Gospels is written by Rev. P N. Land, Doctor of Theology of the National Reformed Church in Holland, now employed by the Dutch goverment on the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum. The Dutch doctor deals unceremoniously with his English brother. He freely admits that Dr. Cureton has furnished a very perfect copy of the Syriac Text; but there his merit ends. Dr. Cureton's scholarship and judgment in Syriac philology are impugned: his notions of the high value of the manuscript repudiated, and his translation held of little worth. In the Intelligence department of the Journal of Sacred Literature the subject is resumed, in an extract from the Literary Churchman, in which Dr. Cureton is no less sharply treated. The claim that the present Recension is identical with Matthew's original Hebrew Gospel is attacked, on the grounds that the existence of such a Hebrew original is problematical, and also on the grounds that the coincidences on which the identification is based are unsatisfactory.

VIII. THE WESTMINSTER REVIEW, October, 1858.-1. France under Louis Napoleon: 2. Indian Heroes: 3. F. W. Newman, and his Evangelical Critics: 4. Travel during the Last Half Century: 5. The Calas Tragedy: 6. Realism in Art: Recent German Fiction: 7. Outbreak of the English Revolution-1642.

The first article of this Quarterly is a very extended exposure of the wickedness of the imperial regime of Napoleon Third. There is, of course, no difficulty for a much less able hand than this reviewer to make out a dark case. But the true causes lying at the basis of Napoleon's power, and which render it questionable whether he is not the best thing in the way of a ruler of which France is capable, the reviewer has no heart to develop. France wants the moral basis for stable freedom. The dark superstition of Romanism on one hand, and the licentious skepticism of the Westminster stamp on the other hand, have abolished from the character of her people, and especially of her intellectual classes, the ethical foundations of all rational liberty. Some of her calmest thinkers, like Jouffroy, have fully realized this, and from the depths even of their own remediless skepticism have pealed forth the cry that the want of the age, without which it is lost, is the restoration of a firm religious faith. The philosophers of the Westminster Review are endeavoring to stop the melancholy conflagration by piling on fuel.

The article on Francis W. Newman endeavors, with no ordinary skill, to show three things: First, Mr. Newman's successive rejection of article after article of evangelical Christianity until he had nothing left but a pious Theism, founded mainly upon the sentiments, was the calm process of a logical mind, eliminating the false from the true, and of a pure spirit expurgating the evil from the good. Second, the counter-arguments of Mr. Newman's Christian opponents were unfair in logic and immoral in temper. Third, the residuum of Mr. Newman's creed is just as unsustainable as parts he has rejected. It is

only hypothetically and subjectively true; that is, positively and universally

untrue.

The whole argument will very differently affect different minds. To us it stands a reduction of Mr. Newman ad absurdum. Religion, the Bible, stands in accordance, indeed, with our highest sentiments, yet based upon historical authentication. Reject that basis, and found it upon the sentiments, and you build a structure on the billows.

There is no English Quarterly whose review of current literature vies with that of the Westminster in fullness, freshness, and personal life. That section of the Review is divided into the several great departments of productive thought, and each department is placed under the charge of a thorough master, able as a writer to invest it with interest. Each department is exhaustively treated, and the progress of higher mind is thus reported, colored, indeed, with partisan views, yet traced with a master hand.

IX. THEOLOGISCHE STUDIEN UND KRITIKEN. Eine Zeitschrift für das gesammte Gebiet der Theologie, in Verbindung mit Dr. J. Müller, Dr. Nitzsch und Dr. Rothe. Herausgegeben von Dr. C. Ullmann und Dr. F. W. C. Umbreit. Jahrgang, 1858, viertes Heft. Gotha, bei Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1858. Abhandlungen.—1. Wolff, Versuch, die Widersprüche in den Jahrreihen der Könige Juda's und Israel's und audere Differenzen in der biblischen Chronologie auszugleichen: 2. Werner, über Ehescheidung und über den Eid auf Christlichem Standpunkt. Gedanken und Bermeckungen.-1. Reichel, die 70 Jahrwochen, Daniel, cap. 9. v. 24-27: 2. Tiele, Beweis, dass Lukas, der Evangelist und Verfasser der Apostelgeschichte, von Geburt ein Jude war. Recensimen.-1. Vierordt, Geschichte der Evangelischen Kirchen in dem Grossherzogthum Baden; rec. von Holtzmann: 2. Hamberger, Oetinger's Theologie aus der Idee des Lebens abgeleitet; rec. von Köster.

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES AND CRITIQUES. Published by Drs. Ullmann and Umbreit. Gotha, 1858. Treatises.-1. An Attempt to Harmonize the Contradictions in the Series of Years of the Kings of Judah, Israel, and other Differences in Biblical Chronology. By O. Wolff: 2. On Divorce and Oaths from a Christian Standpoint. By M. C. G. Werner. Thoughts and Observations.-1. The Seventy Weeks mentioned in Daniel ix, 24-27. By H. L. Reichel: 2. Proof that Luke, the Evangelist and Writer of the Acts of the Apostles, was a Jew by Birth. By J. N. Tiele. Reviews.-1. Vierordt's History of the Evangelical Church in the Grand Duchy of Baden. By J. Holtzmaun: 2. Oetinger's Theology derived from the Idea of Life. By Adolph Köster.

THE Studien und Kritiken, with its three divisions, reminds us very forcibly of one of the old Dutch pictures with folding doors before it to hide it from vulgar eyes. When the sacristan unlocks it and opens wide the doors, behold three pictures, one in the middle and one on each door. This number manifests real German research, and every page is worthy of a close reading. The article on Biblical Chronology breathes an evangelical spirit, and it is refreshing to read such a one when we remember that this has been the theme of so inany bold attacks of the Rationalists. The writer acknowledges the difficulty of his task by introducing the various conjectures as to the time of the division of the kingdom of Israel after Solomon's death. Morer dates it 933 B.C.; Von Gumpach, 937; Seyffarth, 950; Winer and Schlosser, 975; Clinton, 976; Thenius, 977; Bunsen, 978; and Ewald at 985-6. With true German pen-pluck the writer declares that the difficulties are not insurmountablekeinesweges unüberwindlich. In order to reconcile the Biblical accounts, he

divides his field of inquiry into three periods. 1. From the first year of the reign of Rehoboam and Jeroboam to the murder of Ahaziah and Jehoram. 2. From the first year of the reign of Jehu and Athaliah to the downfall of the kingdom of Israel in the sixth year of the reign of Hezekiah and the ninth of Hosea. 3. From the downfall of the kingdom of Israel to the end of the kingdom of Judah, 586 B.C. To fill up these spaces is the chief labor of the writer. The first he proves to be of 95 years duration, the second of 165, the third of 123= 383 years. Then he grants to Saul 21 years, to David 40, and to Solomon 40=101. The duration of the kingdom of Israel must therefore be 383+101= 484 years, or from 1070 B.C. to 586 B.C. The writer concludes with an effort to fix the dates of the Babylonian exile. His inference is that the exile commenced 605 B.C., and ended 535 B.C.; or, as Jeremiah had predicted, xxv, 1, 2, 9–12. The article might have been embraced in less pages, but German prolixity is tolerable when a respect for the Bible is apparent.

The essay on Divorce and Oaths is original and free from verbosity. The author undertakes to explain the teaching of Christ in both cases. He lays down two propositions. 1. That Christ permitted the right of divorce in cases οι πορνεία μυχεία. 2. In all other cases, for example, where mere σχληροκαρ dia is given as excuse, he declares himself against it. The author argues that if people have a full sense of the importance of marriage, what it means and enjoins, they should never be divorced, for "what God hath joined together let no man put asunder." But many get married whom God hath not joined together. Ergo, man can put them asunder. But Christ only gave his consent. He did not enjoin divorce in any case. Kant held that matrimony is an institution merely founded on the laws of nature and society. A. Müller considered it a mere legal relation, and Apel (1799) degrades it to societas hæredum quærendorum causa inita. Fichte says: "Matrimony is a perfect union founded on sexual love." Alas, that great minds sometimes recognize no higher law than expediency! The performance of the rite of matrimony by civil authorities is objected to on the ground that it diminishes the sacredness of the obligation. Persons thus married are recommended to hasten to church at once and be married by one of God's authorities. Many mischievous and absurd opinions that have originated in France have found a lodgment in Germany, but happily the laxity with which the French regard matrimony has kept its own side of the Rhine. But it is for the future to reveal the influence of the writings of Sue, Dumas, and Balzac. They are read to an alarming extent in Protestant Germany, and the next quarter of a century may show their blighting touch upon the sanctity with which the Germans now regard the matrimonial relation. The remainder of the article treats of oaths. They are objected to in toto. The author thinks that if they were not allowed to be used in the ancient Jewish service, for example, offerings, we have no right to make use of them in court-rooms. Göshel terms oaths a necessary evil. Dr. Werner thinks them productive of more evil than good, however, and hopes earnestly, with Rothe, that all promissory oaths may be done away with.

The next article is an elucidation of the mysterious four verses that conclude the ninth chapter of Daniel. Havernich and Hengstenberg are cited as the best authorities. Truly, tempora mutantur, must the Straussians groan.

The paper on Luke is argumentative and satisfactory. The good Neander and Otto von Gerlach had told us that Luke was a heathen by birth, but Pastor Tiele quite unsettles us again. The arguments in favor of his being a heathen by birth have been founded on the purity of his Greek; and J. D. Michaelis affirms that he wrote a more classical Greek than any other evangelist. Notwithstanding all this, the writer adduces very many Hebraisms from the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

The next article is a laudation of Vierordt's History of the Evangelical Church of Baden. When the University of Heidelberg conferred the degree of D.D. on the author of this work, he was termed the Eusebius of Baden Church history. The history of the Church of Baden he divides into three periods. The first extends from 1517 to 1571 or from the entrance of the Reformation to the suppression of the Evangelical Church in Baden Baden. The second reaches to 1685, or when the Palatinate fell into Roman Catholic hands. The third extends to the present. The Grand Duchy of Baden has verily played an important role in the history of Protestantism.

A brief but most interesting sketch of Oetinger and his theology closes the number. Oetinger lived in the seventeenth century, and was an intimate friend of Bengel. It is only recently that attention has been excited toward his almost forgotten works. He was the theosophist of his age. His contemporaries called him the Magus of the South. Says he: "I have made the idea of life, which prevails in the Bible, the chief feature of my theology. The Bible treats of life. 1. God as the source of life. 2. Man as the conservatory of the breath of life. 3. Sin as the estrangement of life from God. 4. Of grace as the communication of new life. 5. The Church as the society where the spirit of life works. 6. The last things as the end and issue of life." "Magic,” says the fantastic old man, "is the science of the friends of God. It is of secret wisdom. But it is the sublimest magic to separate yourself from yourself by means of the cross of Jesus Christ, and to bring the multitude of your thoughts into harmony with the love of Christ."

The Studien und Kritiken is always a welcome visitor to us, for it brings us good messages from the long-loved land of the Reformation. The tone of it is evangelical, though its contributors are not as often the Coryphei of German theology as we would wish. But the articles are almost invariably able and scholarly; and as such they afford strong nourishment for all students of God's word.

H.

X. THE NORTH BRITISH REVIEW, November, 1858.- 1. The Present State of France: 2. Translations from Sanskrit: 3. German Church Historians: 4. Oxford Aristotelianism: 5. Aquatic Zoology-Sir John G. Dalyell: 6. Decimal Coinage: 7. Novels by the Authoress of "John Halifax :" 8. Popular Education in Great Britain and Ireland: 9. Decay of Modern Satire: 10. The Atlantic Telegraph.

THE article on France gives a far more cheerful view of the condition of that nation than the first article of the Westminster.

The third article is a very able review of the principle Ecclesiastical Histories, especially produced by German scholars, Protestant and Catholic. It is pervaded by the two prevalent thoughts that England (including, doubtless, with all propriety, our own country,) has done very little in this department;

and that German ecclesiastical historians know very little of England or America. The only productions in the English worthy the subject are by Principal Campbell and Dr. Welsh. The latter of these, after having produced a single volume of a promised great work, died in his early prime. The review thinks Scotland is as likely soon to see a second Chalmers as a second Welsh.

After Mosheim, the reviewer notices and characterizes Neander, Gieseler, Guericke, Hase, and Kurtz, among Protestants; and Möhler, Ritter, Wessenberg, and Böringher, among Catholics.

Neander's great fault was his want of proportion. He was carried away with his habit of monography. Favorite historical characters are spread out at great latitude; the less fortunate dwindle into miniatures. His monographs on Bernard, Tertullian, and Chrysostom are of themselves a sufficient basis for a substantial reputation.

Gieseler's modern ecclesiastical portion is eminently Germanic:

"Passing to England, we find that Gieseler confounds the Patristie Arminianism of Laud and his school with the Remonstrant Arminianism of Hales and others. He appears to suppose that the statesman and the philosopher, Lord Shaftesbury, were the same person. Not acquainted with such works as Pearson on the Creed,' he speaks of England during the era of his fourth volume (16481814) as having produced no work of systematic theology. While the worthless name of Sterne has prominence given to it, as remarkable for pulpit eloquence (!) we have no mention of Barrow, Taylor, or South, among the Churchmen, or of Howe, Bates, and Doddridge, among the Nonconformists and Dissenters. Far inferior men among the apologetic writers of England are mentioned, but of Butler not a word. Indeed, from the silence observed upon him by others, both Romanist and Protestant, it would appear that the 'Analogy' and the 'Sermons' are quite unknown to our Teutonic friends.

"In this part of his History also, Gieseler leaves out of view the missionary efforts both of Churchmen and of Dissenters, both in England and Scotland. In the subsequent volume (1814-1850) we have indeed mention of the London Missionary Society; but the Church, the Baptist, the Wesleyan, the Free Church Missions are utterly ignored, while nearly half a dozen pages are assigned to the as yet very unproductive Bishopric of Jerusalem.' Again, while some space is given to English Methodism, the almost National church of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists is utterly left out of view.

"Nor has Gieseler made up for his imperfectness in the treatment of English Church History by any better acquaintance with the annals of our brethren in the United States. He says of American Christianity in general, (v. 372) 'In business their dishonesty is so frequent as to be made the matter of universal reproach among other nations; the citizens of the northeast provinces, New York, Pennsylvania, who are most distinguished by an external piety, are also most notorious for their cheating propensities. Their religiousness shows itself in no way by benevolent actions; and, therefore, cannot be as hearty as it is loud in profession.' These sentences are of themselves enough to show that Gieseler knew little about the Home and Foreign Missionary enterprises of our transatlantic brethren. What has been done by them in India, Burmah, the South Sea Islands, is never mentioned. In respect of theological instruction, he says (p. 376) the measure given is very scanty.' The names of Andover and Princeton are of themselves sufficient to refute the statement. The American Theological Reviews also, had they been known to Gieseler, would have furnished indisputable proof of the inaccuracy of his assertion. He speaks of the Unitarians as the most numerous party among the cultivated classes, which is true only of Boston and its vicinity. Of Edwards, Dwight, Woods, as theologians; of Moses Stuart as an exegete; of Payson, Nettleton, and Spencer, as preachers and pastors; of the Abbotts, and other popular religious authors, we have not a word."