"2

worthies. Notwithstanding all that our critic has imagined (p. 319) about "the names of all generations of saints inscribed on" the walls of his own Gibraltar, yet even he must confess that the Alexandrine and Greek Fathers stood upon no such fortress of strife and tumult, but occupied the same broad and peaceful ground which the Dwights and Appletons of New England have enlarged and enriched as the garden of the Lord, and on which the sword will soon be beaten into the ploughshare. But leaving the fathers, let us listen to the voice of the clearest thinker among the Reformers. Zuingli, in his De Peccato Originali Declaratio, says, that he will not contend about a word, that he will permit men to call our native tendency to self-love by the name of sin, and, if this be not sufficient, by the name of wickedness also, crime and profligacy; but he insists that so far forth as it is passive and inborn, it is "not a sin but a disease."1 "Original sin I have called a disease and not a sin, because sin is conjoined with fault, but fault arises from the transgression of one who has chosen wickedness." "Our original fault is not called a fault truly, but metaphorically on account of the offence of our first parent." "Therefore that propension to sin through self-love is original sin, which propension indeed is not properly a sin, but is a source [of it] and natural bent [to it]. We will give an example from the young wolf. It is in all respects a wolf as to its natural bent, and by its ferocity would be led to commit all depredations. But as yet, it has borne away no plunder, because it could not on account of its age. In consequence of its nature, however, the hunters no more spare it than they would spare a wolf from whose jaws they seize the prey; for although young, yet even now its nature is so thoroughly understood by them that they know it will, when grown up, follow the ways of its species. This native bent, then, is original sin or vitiosity, but the act of plunder is sin, which comes from this native bent; this itself is sin in the act, which more recent authors call actual sin, and which properly is sin."" So in his celebrated Confession of Faith, Zuingli says: "Whether we will or not, we must admit, that original sin, as it exists in Adam's descendants, is not properly a sin, as has now been shown; for it is no wicked act $ Ib. 629.

1 Huldrici Zuinglii Opera, Vol. III. p. 628. 2 Ib. 629.

* Zuingli believed, as we do, that our native disease would expose us to future suffering, unless it were removed by Him who came to heal our sicknesses. This suffering is not a punishment, in the sense of implying any real sin. It is a punishment in a loose sense.

5 Huldrici Zuinglii Opera, Vol. III. pp. 631, 632. The same also is frequently repeated in this Treatise.

1851.]

Zuingli on Original Sin.

645

against the law. It is therefore properly a disease and a condition: It is a disease, because as he fell through self-love we also fall in the same way; it is a condition, because as he became a servant and guilty of death, so we are born servants and children of wrath, and consequently are subjected to death." That our original sin is improperly so termed, and is merely a "disease," a "rupture," is often reiterated by this excellent reformer, in his Treatise on Baptism, his Commentary on Romans, and his Letters to Oecolampadius. And so, on this doctrine, and if on this, then on many other doctrines, Zuingli has bound together multitudes of verbal polemics; for various parties are willing to confess, that our nature is itself sin, provided that it be such a kind of sin as is produced by God who never produces any real iniquity; such a kind of sin as is viewed, in and of itself, with regret instead of remorse, humiliation instead of penitence, and is followed with suffering instead of that punishment which the law threatens against all transgressors; such a kind of sin as derives all its wickedness from its being a cause or effect or concomitant of what is truly iniquitous; such a kind of sin as, according to Augustine, the chief author of the doctrine, is properly called a disease rather than a transgression of the law. And we ask as a favor from our assailants, if they persevere in asserting that "our nature itself, as well as all the motions thereof, is truly and properly sin," to give a definition of the conscience which condemns this passive nature; and also, that they point out the inspired passage in which this inborn nature is prohibited by the law, and that they rehearse the words in which it will be sentenced to the legal penalty at the last day. When and where, (and if nowhere, why so) are we exhorted to "resist the beginnings" of this germinal iniquity? not to enter upon that state which to its own wickedness superadds the shame of originating all other abominations? Commit a passive iniquity? Exhort men against being born with evil tendencies? What is the passive voice of the verb, sin? What is the inactive form of the word, evil-doers? Why is language made without any such phrases as to endure or suffer a criminality without any criminal volition? The language of every man whispers the truth, that in practical life, whatever he may do among his books, he no more believes in this peculiar metaphysics of involuntary sin, than Bishop Berkeley believed in the non-existence of the material world.2

1 Martin Luther's Sämtlichen Schriften, Band XX ss. 1942-1943, and Huld. Zuing. Opp. Tom. IV. p. 6.

2 We request an answer to these and similar questions as a fav titled to demand such an answer as a right. It may do for once, bu

A

eply,

#t., Lil

"Truly," says John Calvin, "I abominate mere verbal disputes, by which the church is harassed to no purpose; but I think that those terms ought to be religiously avoided, which sound as if they had an absurd meaning, especially where error is of pernicious consequence." Now, it has been a great aim of New England writers, to dispense with such terms in doctrinal discussion, and confine them to their appropriate sphere. They have watched the theology of good men in its alternating forms of beauty and of power, and have tried to seize and portray, and even daguerreotype, those features into which it has been wont to settle down as its natural expression, after all the changes of its emotive style. Thus have they held up the enduring substance of doctrine, to be looked at not only through the stained glass of the old artists, but also in the pure light of heaven. It was natural that men who criticised the endeared phrases of other times, and condemned the errors into which those powerful phrases had often beguiled their adherents, should be repaid by volleys of intemperate words, even from those who at times make the same criticisms, and renounce the same errors. If rivers have been stained with blood by means of the verbal controversies on Nominalism, still more in theology, where the feelings of men are swift to rise, must we expect that "Gibraltar or Ehrenbreitstein" will bristle with armor, whenever the gentlest query is whispered about the safety of some figurative expressions. But, our consolation is this, that the distinctive theology of New England is not opposed at the present day, unless it be first misrepresented; and when its arguments press hard, we are often told that we say "the very thing which the old Calvinists" meant; and when we name the great and good men who have stood forth as champions of our "three radical principles," we are assured that "Nolo contendere " is inscribed on every gun which was once pointed against the theology of Andrew Fuller; and when we assail the old doctrine "Lumborum Adae," we are gracefully reminded that the doctrine is covered all over with fig-leaves and flowers of rhetoric, and it now lies snugly hidden "behind the walls of Gibraltar or Ehrenbreitstein." Very well, if our opponents will be so kind as to qualify all the terms which we criticise, why may we not

twice, for our Reviewer to escape from all objections by the plea: "Having failed so entirely to understand the Sermon, we shall not be presumptuous enough to pretend to understand the Reply," Bib. Repertory, XXIII. p. 307, and by then proceeding to discuss a theory of Schleiermacher, which has no more connection with the Serent P. than it has with an acute-angled triangle. Indrici. II. Cap. II, § 7.

mon or

d i

1851.]

Notices of New Publications.

647

cultivate the pacific arts and virtues? This is our aim. With this design was an humble sermon preached on "the one theology in two forms." It was intended not to shield such men as Pelagius from the charge of heresy, but such men as our Reviewer, from the charge of remaining steadfast and uniform in an absurdity. It was meant to be an olive branch of peace. But it is now found out to be first a 'weapon, striking a blow upon sturdy trees;' secondly, "the last arrow in the quiver;"a and thirdly, if it be what its author avows it to be, then it is a "penny whistle."" We shall not dispute about a name. We only reassure our excellent Reviewer, that the Sermon was intended to call forth no such "sort of a model of candor and charity," but to accelerate the coming of the day when every "weapon" of war shall be turned into a pruning hook, and when “the leopard shall lie down with the kid."

ARTICLE VIII.

NOTICES OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

I. ANDREWS's EDITION OF FREUND'S LEXICON.5

It is a little remarkable, that the people that are most fond of theorizing, and of daring speculation, furnish the most patient lexicographers. Holland has lost her old reputation for plodding scholarship. The mantle has fallen on the cousins beyond the Rhine. Men are found, who will devote themselves, year after year, with uncomplaining and iron diligence, to all the researches, comparisons, discriminations, reëxaminatians, protracted and almost endless studies, which are needed, in order to complete their great vocabularies. Scarcely had Pape come to the end of his Greek Lexicon of more than 3100 octavo pages, and while the new edition of Passow was lingering in mid course, when Drs. Jacobwitz and Seiler, moved by the want of a good Greek lexicon, brought out the "greater Manual" containing 208 Bogen.

1 Bib. Repertory, XXII. p. 674. 2 Ib., XXIII. p. 320. 8 Ib., XXIII. p. 341. 4 "We wrote a Review which we intended to make a sort of a model of candor (?) and charity," (!) etc. Princeton Review, XXIII. p. 307.

A Copious and Critical Latin-English Lexicon, founded on the Larger LatinGerman Lexicon of Dr. William Freund; with Additions and Corrections from the Lexicons of Gesner, Facciolati, Scheller, Georges, etc. By E. A. Andrews, LL. D. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1851. pp. 1663.

Freund had hardly emerged into the upper air with his four ponderous folios, of 4600 double-columned pages, when Prof. Klotz of Leipsic betook himself to the same prodigious task, or rather to a still more wearing labor, for his lexicon bids fair considerably to outweigh that of his Breslau rival. The picture which is on the cover of Klotz's lieferungs is quite fitting—a lean figure in a shrunk coat, gazing into and almost buried by some huge volumes. Of the value of Dr. Freund's work it is not necessary for us to speak. The preface, in which he details the plan and principles of his lexicon, was published in the Bib. Sac., 1845, p. 79, seq. The lexicon is the fruit of many years of hard labor, by an accomplished classical scholar, trained under the advantages, for which the German schools are unrivalled, and prepared to make full use of all the researches of modern scholars in classical and general philology. His learning, industry and judgment are obvious on every page. In the selection of illustrative examples, in the arrangement of the materials, and in tracing the etymologies, he is particularly happy.

In regard to the merits of the translation, or the work as it appears in the English dress, we cannot give an opinion which is the result of extensive personal examination. We have used the original for several years and have read articles in the translation here and there. An adequate judgment could be given only by those who use the book as they are engaged in the actual study or teaching of Latin. The well-known character, however, of the editor and his two accomplished collaborators, Profs. Robbins and Turner, is a good guaranty that the work is thoroughly done. All are well known as experienced instructors and able philologists. As the lexicon now appears in the English form, it may be described:

First, as compressed into reasonable limits, four large volumes being condensed, with sound judgment, into one.

Secondly, as printed, so far as we can judge, with very great accuracy, the closest attention having been bestowed upon the translation and upon the correction of the sheets.

Thirdly, the divisions, paragraphs, etc. are marked with the utmost distinctness, so that the eye very readily catches what it is in pursuit of. Indeed, we have here an excess of a good thing. The type by which the words are introduced and the divisions marked, is too obtrusive. Our attention is called to the sign-board, rather than to the road which it should point out.

Fourthly, the copious, illustrative quotations from Latin writers, which render many articles pleasant reading, and which form one of the most useful features of the work.

Fifthly, the natural and logical order in which the meanings of a word are arranged. In this respect, the lexicon stands on a level with the late dictionaries in the Hebrew and Greek languages, and in beautiful contrast with the confused and unscientific methods of the old lexicographers.

Sixthly, the pertinence and exactness of the definitions. They are given generally with brevity, yet with precision. Doubtless in this, as in other similar works, there is room for improvement in this the most important, yet most difficult part of a lexicon.