(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The Biblical repository and classical review"

Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 






., . I 



•'' -y.. 



^A 



r 



general library 
—op- 
University OF Michigan. 



1 






L 



. fiL4t#>S??r.. -^.IWi^f^ 



' '^>j' 



■\^iM 



;/^ 







' 


•». 


> 


■'^v^V 


^ 4 


•,: ' */( 






'^''^'■'^ 


■''#*« y 




^- k. 






3^ 
\ 



AMERICAN 



H1^6 2L. 



BIBLICAL REPOSITORY 



COVDVCTXD 

BY ABSALOM PETERS, D. D. 



/ -»•»-* 



VOLUME EIiEVENTH— NUMBERS XXIX, XXX. 



NEW YORK: 

GOULD & NEWMAN, PUBLISHERS AND PRINTERS, 

BOSTON: 

YBXSmS ft HABVm AND CBOCKER ft BREWSTEB. 

1838. 



CONTENTS OF VOL- XI. 



yO. XXIX. 



Page* 
Art. I. The Historical avd 
Geological Deluges Com- 
pared. By ProL Hitchcock, 1 

Art. II. The Utilitt of the . 
Studt of the Classics to 
Theological Students. By 
J.Packard, .... 28 

Art. IU. Literary Impostures. 
By D. Foadick, Jr. . . .39 

Art. IV. The Adtavcement 
OF Biblical Knowledge. By 
Prof. E. P.Barrowa, . . 60 

Art. V. On the Nature of In- 
stinct. By Samuel Fiah, M. 
D. Boston, . . .74 

Art. VI. Fraternal Appeal 
to the American Churches, 
together with a Plan for 
Catholic Union on Apostol- 
' ic Principles. Bj Prof. S. S. 
Schmocker, ... .86 

Art. Vlf. The Hebrew Ten- 
ses. Translation of Ewald, 
with remarkfl, by Mw Stuart, 131 
Syntax of the Verb, . .134 

Of the two Modes with Vav rela- 
tive or conversive, the two re- 
lative historic forms, . .137 
Vav relative with the second 

Mode, . . . .137 

Vav relative with the first Mode, 141 
Participle or relative Tense, . 143 
Remarks, by the Translator, . 146 



Page. 
Art. VIII. Public Libraries. 
By Prof. R. B. Patton, . . 174 

Art< IX. Design of Theolo- 
gical Seminaries. By Prof. 
L. P. Hickok, ... 187 

Art. X. On the Infre^uenct 
OF THE Allusions to Chris- 
tianity IN Greek and Ro- 
man Writers. Translated 
from the Latin of H . T. Tschir- 
ner, by Prof. H. B. Hackett, 203 

Art. XL Connection of the 
Old and New Testaments. 
Translated from the German 
of Prof. Twesten, of Berlin, by 
Prof. B. B. Edwards, . . S33 

Art. Xn. Critical Notices, 345 

1. Union Bible Dictionary, 245 

2. Works of Henry Hallam, 247 

3. James's Christian Professor, 253 

4. Outlines of a History of the 

Court of Rome, . 254 

5. Wayland's Political Econo- 

my, abridged, . . 257 

6. Principles of Interpreting 

the Prophecies, . 257 

7. Works of Joseph Addison, 257 

8. The Toung^ Disciple, . 259 

9. Religious Dissensions^ 259 

10. Noyes's Hebrew Prophets, 260 

11. The Family Preacher, . 261 

12. A Mother's Request, < 261 

Art. XIII. Select Literary 
AND Miscellaneous Intelli- 
gence, 263 



COKTENTS OF VOLUlfC XI. 



NO- 



Page. 
Art. I. TkfE Eyideitces or the 

OfiVUlJfBNESfl OF THE Goft- 
PEZ.»y ET AkDREWS NoRTOH. 

VoL I. Reviewed by M. Staart 265 

Art. II. The Head or the 
Church, Head oter aix 

TBINGB ; n.LU&rRAT£D BY A- 
NAtOOISS BETWEEN NaTURE, ' 

Providence, and Grace. By 
Prof. W. S. Tyler, Amherst 
College, . . . • 344 

Art. 111. Fraternal Appeal 

TO THE Am ERIC AH ChUBCUBS, 
TOGETHER WITH A PlAN FOR 

Catholic Union on Apos* 
tolic Principles. Oonclnded 
from p. 131. By Prof. S. S. 
Schmacker, .... 3G3 
The Apostolic Protestant Con- 
fession, ..... 408 

I. The Apostles' Creed, . . 409 

II. The United Protestant Con- 
fession, . * . . . 409 

Jdode of Operation, . .414 

Art. IV. Causes or the De- 
nial OF THE Mosaic Origin 
OF the Pentateuch. Trans- 
• lated from the German of Prof. 
Hengstenberg of Berlin, by 
Rev. £. Ballantine, . .416 
Introductory Notice, . . 416 
Shallow and Skeptical Interpre- 
tation, . . ... . 418 

Historical Skepticism, . . 435 
Judgment of late HistQi'ians, . 440 

Art. V. What were the Views 

ENTERTAINED BT THE EaRLT 

Reformers on the Doctrine 
OF Justification, Faith, and 



Pago. 
the Active Obedience of 
Christ ? By Rev, R. W. Lan- 
dis, JeiTersonviHe, Pa. . . * 448 
Introduction, .... 448 
§ 1. Views entertained bj the 
Reformers on the doctrine of 
Justification, . 453 

Art. VI. HEBREW Iobxicogra- 
PBT. Review of J. H. R. Bie- 
Benthafs <* HebrSiseheif und 
chaldaisch^s Schulwdrterbuch 
Ober das alte Testament" — and 
Prof. W. L. Roy*s *< Complete 
Hebrew and English Critical 
and Pronouncing Dictionary, , 

. oh a New and Improved Plan." 
By Prof. I« Nordheimer. . 486 

Art. Vn. Critical Notices, 503 
. 1. Dayontiie Will, . . 503 

2. Sin against the Holy Ghost, 506 

3. Schmuoker on the Reform- 

ation, . . . 507 

4. A New Tribute to the Mem- 

ory of J. B. Taylor, . 508 

5. Steedman's South Africa, 509 

6. Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, 609 

7. Letters from the W. Indies, 512 

8. Works of Charles Lamb, 512 

9. .Way land on Responsibility, 513 

10. Works of WiUiam Cowper, 514 

11. Palfrey on the Jewish Scrip- • 

tures and Antiquities, . 515 

12. Prof. Stowe's Report on Ed- 

ucation in £urope, . . 517 

13. Ferdinand and Isabella, . 513 

14. Autiquitates Amcricanae, . 520 

15. Foreign Standard Literature, 519 

Art. VIII. Select Literart 
AKD Miscellaneous Intelli- 
OENCS, ....'. 522 



THE 



AMERICAN 



BIBLICAL REPOSITORY. 

NO. XXIX. 

JANUARY, 1838. 

ARTICLE I. 
The Historical and Geological Deluges Compared. 

By Edward Hitchcock, Prof, of Cbem. and Nat. Hist. Amfaerat Collage. 

[CoDcludad from p. 374. Vol. X.] 

There is one other branch of the argument for a deluge 
iiom diluvial phenomena, which we must not pass in entire 
silence. It is derived from an examination of the contents of 
certain caverns and fissures. We can, however, give but a very 
brief view of it ; although to make it well understood, requires 
a volume. And happily that volume has been written. We 
refer to Dr. Buckland's Reliquiae Diluvianae.^ 

* Id tlie Repository for January 1837, we expressed doubts as to 
what were the real opinions of Dr. Buckland at present respecting the 
geological evidence of a deluge ; or rather, how far his opinions, as 
given in bis Reliquiae, had been modified. On receiving his Bridge- 
water Treatise, we found that he had not abandoned the opinion that 
there has been a recent inundation of the earth, as shown by geology : 
but he doubts whether its identity with the Noachian deluge can be 
made out The following are his views — ''The evidence which 1 
have collected in my Reliquiae Diluvianae, 1823, shows that one of 
the last great physical events that have affected the surface of our 
globe was a violent inundation which overwhelmed a great part of the 
northern hemisphere, and that this event was followed by the sudden 
disappearance of a large number of the species of terrestrial quadni- 

VoL. XL No. 29. I 



2 Historical and Geological Deluges. [Jan. 

In 1821, the attention of Dr. Buckland was called to the 
contents of a cavern in limestone, in Yorkshire, that had recent- 
ly been opened and found to contain numerous peculiar bones. 
He found this cavern to contain on its floor the following sub- 
stances. At the bottom was a coating of stalagmite, or concre- 
ted limestone, that had dripped from the roof; then succeeded 
a layer of mud, which contained, as did also the stalagmite be- 
neath it, numerous fragments of the bones of animals, most of 
them extinct. Above the mud was a second layer of stalag- 
mite, destitute of bones ; and the cavern appeared to have been 
closed since the period when the mud was introduced ; the 
lower stalagmite having been deposited previous to that time^ 
and the upper stalagmite subsequently. More than twenty 
species of animals were made out from these relics ; and they 
were mostly tropical animals. From all the facts in the case, 
which were examined with great care by Prof. Buckland, he 
made several very important inferences : First, that this cave 

peds, which had inhabited these regions in the period immediately 
preceding it. I also ventured to apply the name Diluvium, to the 
superficial beds of gravel, clay and sand which appear to have been 
firoduced by this great irruption of water. The description of the 
facts that form the evidence presented in this volume, is kept distinct 
from the question of the identity of the event attested by them, with 
any deluge recorded in history. Discoveries which have been made, 
since the publication of this work, show that many of the animals 
therein described, existed during more than one geological period 
preceding the catastrophe by which they were extirpated. Hence it 
seems more probable, that the event in question was the last of the 
many geological revolutions that have been produced by violent irrup- 
tions of water, rather than the comparatively tranquil inundation de- 
scribed in the Inspired Narrative. It has been justly argued, against 
the attempt to identify these two great historical and natural phe- 
nomena, that as the rise and fall of the waters of the Mosaic deluge 
are described to have been gradual, and of short duration, they would 
have produced comparatively little change on the surface of the coun- 
try they overflowed. The large preponderance of extinct species 
among the animals we find in caves, and in superficial deposits of 
diluvium, and the new discovery of human bones along with them 
afiford other strong reasons for referring these species to a period an- 
terior to the creation of man. This important point however cannot 
be considered as completely settled, till more detaiied investigations of 
the newest members of the Pliocene, and of the diluvial and alluvial 
formations shall have taken place.** BridgtwaUr TrecUise, p. 94, JVbte. 
Loiid^, 1836. 



1838.] Histcrical and Oeologieal Deluges. 3 

for a long time previous to the bringing in of the layer of mud, 
was the abode of hyenas, which dragged in thither the bones of 
other animals for their food. Secondly, that the mud was in- 
troduced by some general flood, and not by local inundations. 
Thirdly, that since the introduction of the mud, a considerably 
long period roust hav^ elapsed during which the upper layer of 
stalagmite was formed. Fourthly, that numerous tropical ani- 
mals inhabited England at the period immediately preceding 
this inundation. Fifthly, that these became extinct at that time. 
By examining other similar caves and fissures in England and 
on the continent, he was able to add, Sixthly, that the period of 
the introduction of the mud corresponded with the epoch at 
which diluvium was deposited all over the world ; and. Sev- 
enthly, that man did not probably exist in Europe previous to 
that period ; since none of his remains have been found there in 
diluvium; though more recently some of the French geologists 
have maintained that human remains occur in such circumstan- 
ces as to indicate tliat man must have been contemporary with 
elephants, hyenas, etc. But Dr. Buckland, in his recent Bridge- 
water Treatise, still maintains that ^* no conclusion is more fully 
established than the important fact of the total absence of any 
vestiges of the human species throughout the entire series of 
geological formations."* Finally, it was inferred fix)m the facts 
respecting the caverns and fissures, that the sea and land did 
not change places at the last deluge ; that is, the antediluvian 
continents did not then sink down, and the post-diluvian conti- 
nents rise, as has been fi-equently imagined. 

These conclusions, we are aware, have been assailed from all 
quarters ; and we observe that not many geological writers seem 
now disposed to admit them in their full extent. Perhaps, indeed, 
Dr. Buckland made some inferences which the facts more tho- 
roughly understood will not justify. And he also attempted to 
identify the deluge that filled the caverns and fissures with that 
of Noah ; a point which he has himself since abandoned. But 
viewing the facts as indicative of a deluge, and not of the 
Mosaic deluge, we have never seen any refutation of the gen- 
eral conclusions that we have stated above. Indeed, they cor- 
respond well with similar facts taught by other parts of geology, 
and a presumption is thereby created in favor of their truth. 
Taken independently of the other phenomena of diluvium^ 



* Bridgewater Treatise, Vol. I. p. 103. London, 1836. 



4 Historical and Geological Deluges* [Jan. 

which we have detailed, we doubt whether this antediluvian 
chamel house could have given us so clear an msight into the 
early history of our globe. Nor has Dr. Buckland attempted 
to separate the two classes of phenomena ; and until we meet 
with stronger objections than any we have yet seen, we must 
regard his history of the contents of caves and fissures as an in- 
teresting branch of diluvial agency on the globe. 

We have thus endeavored to present a somewhat extended 
view of the argument furnished by geology, and derived chiefly 
from our own country in proof of an extensive if not universal 
deluge in comparatively modem times. We freely confess that 
we cannot explain the phenomena in any other way, than by 
admitting the occurrence of such a catastrophe. But we have 
no disposition to be dogmatical on the subject ; and we have 
endeavored to show that the denial of any such deluge does not 
bring us at all into collision with the inspired history. But ad- 
mitting such a deluge, is it, or is it not identical with that de- 
scribed by Moses? On this point we shall be still less disposed 
to dogmatize. Yet we will present our readers with the argu- 
ments in favor of their identity, as well as with those opposed 
to it. 

In the first place, the deluges of geology and of Scripture 
agree in being comparatively recent. We know the date of the 
latter ; but though geology has left on imperishable monuments 
the traces of many distinct epochs, it tells us of few chronologi- 
cal dates. Hence we can only compare the diluvial epoch with 
those that preceded it. And with the exception of the modem 
epoch, that is the commencement of the deposition of alluvium, 
the time when diluvium was deposited was the last of these 
epochs. It might indeed have been earlier than the date of 
Noali's deluge : yet we have m another place presented argu- 
ments to prove that it could not have been excessively remote. 
And until it can be proved that it was more remote than the 
flood described by Moses, why should he give it a gratuitous 
antiquity that we might not identify it with the latter ? Tme 
philosophy, it seems to us, ought to regard them as synchronous 
until very strong evidence be presented to the contrary. 

Secondly, the two deluges agree together in being of great 
extent. We do not say, m being universal, because it may be 
doubted and often has been, in regard to each of them, whether 
they were so. We think we have shown that the geological 
deluge extended over a large part of the northern hemisphere : 



1838.] Historical and Geological Deluges. 5 

but the tropical and southern parts of the globe have not bad 
their diluvial phenomena examined with care enough to enable 
us to decide whether this deluge extended so far. Yet from 
the powerful waves produced at a great distance by earthquakes 
beneath the ocean, it is difficult to conceive how a torrent of 
water should rush over the northern hemisphere, or even over 
the northern parts of America, without inundadng by its direct 
or reflex action aU other parts of the globe. We prefer, how- 
ever, to speak of the last geological deluge as being extensive, 
rather than universal, until direct evidence be furnished of its 
being coextensive with the globe. 

As to the extent of the Noachian deluge, the language of 
Scripture seems at first view to be very decided : And the wQ' 
ters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth ; and all the high 
hiUs thai were under the whole heaven were covered. Alike 
universal are the terms employed repeatedly to denote the de- 
struction of animals upon the earth : And behold J, even J, do 
bring a ilood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, 
wherein u the breath of life, from under heaven; and every 
thing that is in the earth shall die. In spite of these strong 
expressions, not a few able writers have understood them as 
simply universal terms with a limited meaning. Of such cases 
numerous examples might be quoted in the sacred records. 
Thus, in Gen. 41: 57, it is said, that aU countries came into 
Egypt to Joseph to buy com, because that the famine was sore 
in all lands. Here we have reason to suppose that only the 
well known countries around Egypt are meant. Again, 1 
Kings 10: 24 : And all the earth sought to Solomon to hear 
his unsdom: that is, doubtless, his rame was very extensive, 
and many sought to him, but not literally the whole earth. 
We have also a case in point in Deut. 2: 25 : This day I wiU 
begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the 
nations that are under the whole heavens, who shall hear report 
of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish became of thee. 
An analogous case is that of the animals shown to Peter in vi- 
sion, let down in ^^ a certain vessel," wherein were all manner 
of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts and creep* 
tng things, and fowls of the air, ^Acts 10: 12.) Who will 
imagine that all the quadrupeds, reptues, and birds on the globe, 
were here shown to the apostle ? Is it not clear that this is an 
example of the principle stated by Aristotle : to fig navug aV- 
tl noXXoi nata fiituipogar eip9;ra», '^ aU is said metaphorically 



6 Historical and Oeological Deluges, [Jan. 

for many 7" We might quote here the declaration of Paul to the 
Colossians (Col. 1: 23) wherein he speaks of the Oospel which 
was preached to every creature which is under heaven. No 
one can suppose that the apostle meant that the Gospel had in 
that day been literally preached to every creature under hea- 
ven : for every reader must have known the contrary to be 
true. But it had been preached very extensively ; and thus 
would every reader understand it ; so conformable was the mode 
of expression to the idiom of the Bible, and indeed of all lan- 
guages. " The Jews," says Michaelis, " have well observed, 
that bb , ally every, is not to be understood, on all occasions, 
with the mathematical sense of all; because, it is^also used to 
signify many." The same is true of the Greek nae^ the Latin 
omniSf the English aUy etc. Even in the description of the 
flood in Genesis there is one of these universal terms employed, 
whose meaning we are obliged to limit. It was commanded to 
Noah — of every living thing of all flesh, pairs of every sort, 
shalt thou bring into the ark to Jceep them alive. Here we 
must limit the term all flesh, to such animals as needed a shel- 
ter from the cataclysm. Most writers on the Scriptures are now 
willing to admit that not even pairs of all the land animals, 
amounting it is now well known to several hundred thousand, 
were collected from every part of the earth into the ark. Even 
Granville Penn, in his severe strictures upon geology, as he 
understands it, or rather as he misunderstands it, takes this ground. 
But the younger Rosenmiiller very justly contends, that if 
the universality in respect to the animals saved in the ark be 
given up, so must the universality in respect to its extent : that 
is, if we may limit the terms in the one case, we may in the 
o^er. 

Such has been the conclusion of many able commentators. 
" It is evident," says bishop Stillingfleet, " that the flood was 
universal as to mankind ; but from thence follows no necessity 
at all of asserting the universality of it as to the globe of the 
earth, unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole earth was 
peopled before the flood." (Orig. Sacr. Book 3. chap. 4.) 
" Cfonsentiunt quidem omnes, says Le Clerc, " diluvium 
universale iiiisse, quatenus totum orbem babitatum oppressit, 
universumque humanum genus, exempta Noachi familia, eo 
interiit. At alii volunt totum telluris globum aquis obrutum 
fuisse, quod alii negant." " Non putandum est," says Poole 
in bis oynopsis, "totum terrae glc^um aquis tectum fuisse. 



1838.] Historical and Geological Dehigei. 7 

Quid opus erat iUas mergere terras, ubi homines non erant ? 
Licet ergo credamus ne centissiroam quidem orbis partem aquis 
fuisse obrutam, erit nihilomious diluvium universale, quia clades 
totum orbem oppressit." " Num diluvium totum terrarum or- 
bem inundavit," says Dathe, ^^ an regiones tan turn eo tempore 
babitatas dissentiunt interpretes. Ego quidem facio cum his, 
qui posterioram sententiam defendunt — vocabulum omnis, non 
probat inundationem fuisse universalem. Constet multis in 
locis y^ intelligendum esse tantum de re, sive loco de quo agi- 
tur, Cap. 2: 19,20. Ezek. 31:6. Igitur omnia aninudwy 
in navem intromissa sunt earum regionum, quae aquis inundan- 
dae. Sic quoque de moniibus sentiendum est, quos aquae su- 
peraverunt."* 

We doubt, therefore, whether the language of Moses requires 
us to admit that he meant to impute an universality to the de- 
luge coextensive with the earth. But if it be a fact that the 
ark did rest upon the summit of the present mount Ararat, in 
Armenia, and that the waters rose fifteen cubits above that level, 
we can hardly conceive it possible that so mighty a wave should 
not sweep ovei the whole globe, either in its flux or reflux* 
For according to the recent observations of professor Parrot, 
that mountain is 15,219 English feet above the ocean. There 
are two suggestions, however, that may throw some doubt over 
this conclusion. Some authors do not think it certain that the 
present mount Ararat is the Ararat (ts'inM) on which the ark 
rested. "The stream of interpreters," says Mr. Kirby, "an- 
cient and modem, place this mountain in Armenia ; but Shuck- 
ford, after Sir Walter Raleigh, seems to think that Ararat was 
further to the east and belonged to the great range anciently 
called Caucasus and Imaus, which terminates in the Himmaleh 
mountains to the north of India. This opinion seems to receive 
some confirmation from Scripture, for it is said, as they journey^ 
edfrom the easty they found a plain in the land of Shinar. 
Now the Armenian Ararat is to the north of Babylonia, where- 
as the Indian is to the east.^f Mr. Kirby quotes also the tra- 
dition prevalent in India that the ark was moored at first to the 
Himmaleh, and he considers its superior height as correspond- 
ing better than that of Ararat with the long period of ten weeks 
that intervened after the ark first rested, before the tops of other 

* Pentateuchus a Dathio, p. 63. 

t Bridgewater Treatise, p. 35. Philad. 1836. 



8 Historical and Geological Deluget. [Jan. 

mountains were seen. These arguments are not perhaps suffi- 
cient to overweigh the almost universal testimony of antiquity ; 
yet they are not without weight. We venture to make another 
suggestion. Is it certain that the ark rested upon the highest 
summit of Ararat ? The language of Moses does not surely 
teach that such was the fact ; for he merely states that the ark 
rested upon the mountains of Ararat, or Armenia (t3^*3« '^'yn b9 , 
Gen. 8: 4\ And we might presume that the place of de- 
scent would be chosen by God jn a convenient spot for reach- 
ing the plain below ; whereas the summit of Ararat is so diffi- 
cult of ascent, that not until A. D., 1829, did man suc- 
ceed in setting his foot upon it. So that nothing but a mir- 
acle could have enabled the men and animals preserved in the 
ark to descend in safety. We confess that the point where the 
ark rested must have been very elevated, because we find it to 
have been ten weeks afterwards before the tops of other moun- 
tains began to appear, although the waters were continually de- 
creasing. 

If we mistake not, then, the deluges of Scripture and of geol- 
ogy, may, or may not, have been universal, in consistency with 
the language of the sacred history, and with the facts of science 
as they are at present understood. They agree, therefore, in 
having been very extensive, if not universal. And in view of 
such proo£i of their identity, it should require decisive evidence 
to the contrary to disjoin them. The following are the principal 
objections to this identity. 

1. The great preponderance of extinct species of organic 
beings in diluvium. Some of these species appear to have ex- 
isted through several geological periods anterior to the diluvial 
epoch. Now it is known that the more unlike existing animals 
and plants are to the remains of those in a particular formation, 
the more ancient do we conclude that formation to be. On the 
same principle, the presumption is rather in favor of placing the 
last aqueous catastrophe which geology describes at a period 
earlier than man's creation. 

2. No human remains are found in diluvium. If man had 
existed and in great numbers, there seems no reason why his 
remsuns should not occur along with those of other animals. 
There is no way to avoid this conclusion but by supposing the 
antediluvians to have been limited to central Asia, whose dilu- 
vium has been as yet little explored. 

3. The period occupied by the Mosaic deluge was too short 



1888.] Mttoricd and Geologiad Dehige$. 9 

to have produced the diluvial phenomena iK^bich geology eihi* 
bits* We confess we have been deeply impressed with this 
objection, when witnessing the powerful denuding effects of the 
the last geological cataclysm. It is not merely the vast accu* 
mulations of diluvium, nor the smoothed and fiirrowed aspect 
of the hardest rocks, that have seemed to demand more time 
than the year of the Noachian deluge ; but the scooping out of 
vallies, and that too of considerable depth, and in solid rock. 
True, there are distinct marks of a power and violence in the 
diluvian waters of which we see no examples at present in 
aqueous currents ; and we feel at a loss to determine bow much 
more rapidly this unknown increase of power might have accom- 
plbhed the work of denudation. We ought to recollect too, 
that when we look upon a valley through which a powerfiil 
current of water has rushed, we are not generally able to deter- 
mine whether that current has formed the whole valley, or only 
given it its last form. Another circumstance, also, has struck 
us as indicating that even the geologk^l deluge did not occupy 
an immense period. Along the rocky banks of existing rivers, 
we have almost alwajrs found more or less of those excavations 
in the rocks called pot holes, produced by the long continued 
gyratory motion of pebbles in a cavity. But distinct as are the 
marks of the diluvial waters, we never saw any of these peculiar 
excavations. And we cannot but impute their non-existence 
to the want of sulfficient time during the cataclysm. 

Upon the whole, the arguments against the identity of the 
two deluges appear to us rather to preponderate. ^' This impor- 
tant pomt, however,'^ to use the language of Dr. Buckland, 
*^ cannot be considered as completely settled, till more detailed 
investigations of the newest members of the Pliocene, and of 
the diluvial and alluvial formations shall have taken place."* 
We feel no great anxiety how this question is settled, as to its 
bearing upon revelation. But examined in the true spirit of 
the Baconian philosophy, it seems to us that there is quite too 
much evidence of the identity of the two deluges, and quite too 
much ignorance of the whole subject of diluvium yet remaining, 
to permit an impartial geologist to decide peremptorily, as some 
have done, that they could not have been contemporaneous* 
We rather prefer that state of mind in which the judgment re- 
mains undecided, waiting for further light. Meanwhile it is 

* Bridgewater Treatise, p. 95. Vol. I. Londoo, 1636. 
Vol. XI. No. 29. 2 



10 Historical and Oeological Deluges. [J ait. 

sufficient, so far as revelation is concerned, to have shown that 
no presumption is derived from geology against the truth of 
Moses's history of the deluge ; but rather a presumption in its 
favor even on the most unfavorable supposition. 

3. We now proceed, as the third general branch of our *uJ- 
ject, to consider the most important objections derived from 
geology and natural history, against the truth of the Mosaic 
history of the deluge. 

Not many years since, it was thought by the skeptical, that 
civil history furnished many facts inconsistent with the recent 
date of the Noachian deluge. The archives and traditions of 
Assyria, Egypt, and China, the Hindoo astronomical tables, 
and the Zodiacs of Denderah and Esneh, were mustered for 
battle with the Bible. The shout of victory, on the part of infi- 
delity, rung loudly before the tug of the war had come. And 
it was not so much Christians who stood up in defence of the 
Bible, as it was men, who with little regard for the Scriptures, 
were yet friends to fair examination. Before the magic scru- 
tiny of such minds, the hoary aspect of these vaunted relics dis- 
appeared, and strong confirmation of the Mosaic chronology was 
the result. So that it is no longer necessary to go into a labored 
refutation of the extravagant chronologies of semi-barbarous na- 
tions, nor of their supposititious astronomical epochs.* Many 
of the objections to the Mosaic chronology, derived from sci- 
ence, also, now that the subjects are better understood, have 
ceased to be adduced by intelligent infidels ; but we must briefly 
refer to some, which, by those not thoroughly acquainted with 
science, are still occasionally adduced in opposition to the au- 
thority of Moses. 

1. It has been thought that certain natural processes now 
going on, must have had an earlier commencement than the 
date of the Noachian deluge. . 

It is hardly necessary here to refer to the seven lava beds, 
said to exist around Mount Etna, with a rich stratum of soil, or 
decomposed lava, between each of them ; and each of which 
it was supposed must have demanded at least 2000 years for 
its formation and decomposition. For it now appears that the 
supposed decomposed surface is nothing but a ferruginous tufa, 

* By far the best view of these subjects which we have seen ia 
contained ia the iaterestiog Lectures of Dr. Wiseman on the Connec- 
tion between Science and Revelation, recently republished at Andover. 



1838.] Historical and Geological Deluges. 1 1 

which is often produced at the beginning or end of a vdcanic 
eruption ; and, therefore, these successive beds of lava might 
have been produced in as many years. 

The gorge or ravine, 200 feet deep and seven miles long, 
between Niagara Falls and Lake Ontario, has long been thought 
to require an immense period for its excavation ; at least 10,000 
years. Admitting this to be true, we do not see how it clashes 
with the chronology of Moses^ according to the view which 
most christian geologists take of the creation of the world. 
For why may not that excavation have commenced anterior to 
the deluge ; nay, before the six days of creation ? Nearly all 
real geologists now believe that our continents remain essentially 
the same as they were before the deluge ; so that antediluvian 
processes of excavation might have been resumed in the postdi- 
luvian period. But there is another and probably a better mode 
of meeting this difficulty. Prof. Rogers, as we have seen, 
(p. 346, No. 28,) supposes that Uie trough below the falls may have 
been commenced by diluvial agency ; and that the waters of the 
lake have only modified it and are slowly extending it southerly. 
The fact that this trough lies in a north and south direction 
favors this suggestion, made as it is by a cautious and able geol- 
ogist ; and whoever is familiar with diluvial phenomena, will 
see at once that it is extremely probable. According to this 
theory all calculations made from the present rate of retrocession 
of the falls, will give us no correct results as to the time when 
the process began, because we do not know at what point the 
abrading process began. 

2. Another objection formerly urged with confidence, is, that 
it is mathematically impossible for the present oceans of the 
globe to be raised so as to cover its whole surface. This would 
require several additional oceans to be superimposed upon those 
now existing, and from whence could this immense additional 
quantity of water have proceeded ; or if miraculously obtained^ 
what has become of it ? 

Some have replied, by considering the whole phenomena of 
the flood as miraculous. And a perusal of the scriptural narra- 
tive is apt to leave the impression on the mind that such was 
the case. But according to the present state of geological sci- 
ence, there is no need of resortbg to a miracle to escape firom 
this objection. For in the first place, we have endeavored to 
show that there is nothing in the Scripture account of the deluge 
that requires us to consider it universal, except so far as man 



12 Historical and Geological Deluges. [Jan. 

dwelt on the globe. But secondly, the sudden elevation of a 
continent, or mountain chain, would raise such a wave, as in its 
flux and reflux, must overwhelm all the dry land, although all 
continents might not be submerged at the same moment. We 
have sometimes been almost disposed to believe that this flux 
and reflux of the diluvian waters i$ referred to in the ^Vtbi ^ibn 
of Gen. 8: 3, and the nioh^. tjitn of Gen. 8: 6, (literally^ in 
going and returning and in going and decreasing) but we 
suppose that the Hfebrew idiom will not allow that any thing 
more is included in these phrases than a continual decrease of 
the waters. 

3. Some parts of the globe it is said exhibit no marks of diluvial 
agency. Chaubard, as already stated, (p. 351 , No. 28,) declares 
tlmt erratic blocks or bowlders are wanting in the Pyrenees, 
the Appenines, the Carpathian mountains, and the mountains of 
Bohemia ; and Mr. Lyell states that he did not find them in 
Sicily, nor in Italy, till he approached the foot of the Alps. 
Humboldt states, also, that there are no such fragments at the 
eastern foot of the equatorial Andes.* Mr. Lyell likewise rep- 
resents the cones of extinct volcanoes in central France as 
showing no marks of erosion by water.f These facts are not, 
however, adduced by these writers to disprove the occuhnence 
of such a flood as Moses describes ; but some of them at least 
suppose that they show that catastrophe to have been local, not 
universal ; or that it was too quiet to leave any permanent 
traces of its existence. And if we admit that the Noachian 
deluge was not universal, as we have endeavored to show may 
be done consistently with the terms of the sacred record, these 
statements are no objection to that history. But we may be 
permitted to doubt whether they throw any formidable difficulty 
in the way of one who contends for the universality and power- 
ful action of the Mosaic deluge. For it is very certain that the 
force of diluvial currents was greatly modified by local circum- 
stances, having been most powerful in mountainous regions, 
or where the waters were forced through narrow gorges. Hence 
it is easy to conceive, that in some regions those currents might 
have been so feeble, as for instance on extensive plains, as to 
leave few or no traces. And as to the volcanic cones of central 

* Lyell's Annivemary Address before the London Oeol. Society, 
1836. p. 32. 

t Lor^'b Geology^ Vol. 3. p. 273. 



1838.] HitUnicai and Geological Deluges. 13 

France, is it certain that they may not have been thrown up 
since the time of Noah's flood ? For the earliest historical 
records respecting that country, do not reach back within 2000 
years of that event. Or if they were antediluvian, is it certain 
that the diluvial currents might not have been comparatively 
feeble in that region ? 

4. The existence and preservation of the dive on mount Ar^- 
arat have been regarded as other objections against the Mosaic 
account of the deluge. It does not now grow, it is said, in the 
vicinity of that mountain, certainly not near its top, which is 
covered with perpetual snow. It might be a sufficient replj 
to this difficulty, Uiat there has been in all ages not a little di- 
versity of opinion as to the situation of the Ararat on which the 
ark rested. If the opinion should prove true, that it is really a 
part of the Himmaleh range in India, the objection would dia^ 
appear. But not to resort to this mode of avoiding the difficult 
ty, if we regard the sacred and geological deluges as identical^ 
we have the strongest reason to suppose that at the time of the 
latter, there was no small change of the temperature of northern 
regions. All the northern part of Asia abounds with the re- 
mains of the elej^nt. It is true that one of these animals, 
found preserved entire in ice, was covered witfa hair ; and some 
have thought that this circumstance proves the animal to have 
been an inhabitant of a cold climate. But if it inhabited a cli* 
mate as cold as the one now existing there, whence could k 
obtain vegetable food ? The truth is, that haity elephants are 
now found in the higher and cooler parts of India ; and tuis 
shows us, that diough the climate of Siberia when inl»lHted by 
these extinct races of elephants was colder tiian the present un» 
modified climate of the torid aone, yet it was not much colder. 
And hence the antediluvian climate around the present Ararat, 
might have been warm enough to have produced the olive. 
Indeed, for this purpose very little change was probably neces- 
sary ; we mean in the lower parts of Armenia ; since Stvsbo 
m«[itions that in his day one part of that <countiy did actuailly 
produce die olive. 

That a change of climate did take place at the epoch of the 
geologbal dduge, is proved very <$onclusiTely from the fo<A 
above referred to, of the cHscovery of an entire elephant enoased 
in ice on the shores of the Arctic Ocean. (For previous to the 
time in which he was oaveloped in the ice, the climate mum, 
have been too warm, in eider that sodi an •animail might lire^ 



14 Historiccd and Geological Deluges. [Jan. 

to suppose he was frozen up during the winter so firmly as not 
to thaw out again during the summer. But the congelation, 
when it took place, was so powerful that the ice remained un- 
melted till the beginning of the present century. The change 
of climate therefore, must have been sudden and permanent. 
Whether the pouring down of the contents of the Arctic Ocean 
upon that country might have been a sufficient cause of this 
change, we hardly feel prepared to say. That it would pro- 
duce as great a change of temperature as we suppose took place, 
for the time being, we doubt not. We find it difficult, however, 
to conceive that this cause should still continue in operation. 
On the whole, beset as the subject is with difficulties, we are 
prepared to say little more than that a change of climate did 
take place at the epoch of the last geological deluge ; and if 
the deluge of Scripture be identical, this fact removes all diffi- 
culty respecting the growth of the olive in Armenia. Or, if 
they be not identical, what happened at one of these cataclysms^ 
may have been repeated during the other. 

It appears that during the Noachian deluge the olive tree 
from which the dove obtained a leaf, was neither uprooted, nor 
did it lose its vitality. Hence some have inferred that there 
could not have been much violence in the diluvian waters. 
But we have only to suppose that particular tree to have stood 
in a sheltered situation, and it might have remained unaffected 
though the waters raged with great fury around it. As to the 
" leaf plucked off," it might have been put forth after the waters 
had subsided ; for there was an interval of more than a month 
and a half between the time when' the ark first grounded, and 
when the dove w^ sent forth the second time. Some have 
supposed the olive to have been a new creation, of which we 
have reason to suppose there may have been many examples 
immediately subsequent to the deluge. But in that case, the 
leaf could hardly have been evidence to Noah that the earth 
bad become so dry that vegetation had again put forth. Nor 
do we see any need of miraculous agency in the case, and 
therefore we ought not to admit it without strong proof. 

5. Another objection to the Mosaic account of the deluge is, 
that pairs of all the animals on the globe could not have been 
preserved in the ark. From the days of Celsus, who in refer- 
ence to this difficulty denominated the ark mfimtov dXlonoxoPy 
the absurd arlcy to the present time, this objection has been urg- 
ed as quite unanswerable. And many theologians have made 



1838.] Hisiorical and Geological Deluges. 15 

great ef&rts to show, by rigid calculation, that there was room 
abundant in that vessel for all the animals that would be liable 
to be destroyed by a deluge, with provisions for a year. If we 
regard the cubit as having been 21.8 inches, according to some 
writers, the length of the ark was 547 English feet, its breadth 
ninety-one feet, and its height fifty-five feet. But if the cubit 
was only a foot and a half, according to the most probable esti- 
mate, its length was 450 feet, its breadth seventy-five feet, and 
its height forty-five feet. Now such dimensions would perhaps 
be sufficient to accommodate pairs of all the animals known to 
naturalists in the days of Bufifon ; when they estimated the 
number of the mammalia at about 250, and made little account 
of other animals. But since more than a thousand quadrupeds 
have been described, more than 6000 birds, and more than 100, 
000 insects ; and since it is made probable that the actual num- 
ber of these classes is at least half a million ;* such calculations 
as these have fallen into neglect, and no judicious Christian 
likes to rest the authority of Moses upon such uncertain esti- 
mates, if there be another mode of meeting this difficulty less 
objectionable. And another mode is now generally adopted, even 
by writers who aro extremely fearful lest any violence should 
be done to the language of Scripture, to accommodate it to the 
discoveries of science. They suppose it, as we have already 
mentioned in considering the question as to the universality of 
the fiood, an example where universal terms are used with a 
limited signification. For the command to bring mto the ark 
of every living thing of all flesh, pairs of every sort, must, at 
any rate, be limited to those animals that live out of water ; 
and there would seem to be no reason why a still further limi- 
tation of the language is not allowable if there be sufficient rea- 
son for it. Now we cannot but believe that the impossibility, 
without a constant miracle, of collecting and preserving all ani- 
mals firom every part of the world in the ark, as well as the en- 
tire uselessness oi doing this, so far as we can see, together wkb 
the difficulties resulting fix)m the facts concerning their present 
distribution over the earth, (a subject which we shall shortly 
consider,) do form a sufficient reason for limiting the language 
of Moses to those animals most common and important in the 
country where the ark was constructed ; or rather to a sufficient 
number of animab to form an impressive memorial to the post- 

* Foreign Quarterly Review for April, 1635, p. 90. 



16 Hittorical and Oeological Deluges. [Jan. 

diluviaDS of so great a catastrophe, and probably also to furnish 
them at once, without a miracle, with the necessary domestic 
animals. The case seems very analogous to the naming of an- 
imals by Adam, when it is said that Adam gave names to aU 
cattle and to the fowl of the air. But few commentators 
we believe will contend that this is to be understood as zoologi- 
cally true. We are not prepared to say that the ark might not 
have been large enough to have contained pairs of all the ani- 
mals that live out of water ; but to collect them and take care 
of them and afterwards to distribute them over the face of tha 
earth must have b^en altogether miraculous, and as we do not 
see of what use such a miracle could have been, and we know 
that God does not put forth a miraculous agency where the ob- 
ject can be accomplished by his ordinary operations, we rather 
prefer the explanation that supposes universal terms to have 
been employed with a limited meaning ; and that only a part of 
the species of animals that then existed were preserved in the 
ark. As we do not thus violate the principles of interpretation, 
and as this exegesis perfectly satisfies the objection, it seems to 
us more satisfactory than any other. 

6. Finally, it is said that the present distribution of animals 
on the globe is incompatiUe with the idea that they ever spread 
or migrated from any one point on its surface, as they must have 
done if all proceeded finom those preserved b the ark. This is 
the most important and plausible objection we have considered ; 
and in order fully to appreciate its force, we must date the gen- 
eral principles by which the distribution of plants and animals 
on the globe has been regulated ;•— « subject, which, until re- 
cently, even the ablest naturalists did not understand ; and oon- 
eeming which, we apprehend that very vague notions now pre- 
vail among die great mass of intelligent men who are not natu- 
talists. 

In the first place, a considerable number of spedes, both of 
animals and plants, are capable of enduring great varieties of 
climate, and have in fact migrated over a considerable part of 
the globe. Most of the domestic animals, sudi as the ox, the 
horse, the dog, and the cat, are of thb description ; being found 
in every dimale. Bui some, such as dae camel and the ele* 
phant, «re confined to the warmer parts of the earth. Some 
plants also accompany man wherever be goes. The plantain^ 
ibr instance (Plantago major L.) followed the track of the first 
settlers of this country so uoinniily, as to be denominated by 



1838.] Hiitorical and Oeological Dehtget. 17 

Indians, ** English man's foot." It is only a few years since 
the flea bane (Erigeron Canadense L.) was first carried to Eu« 
rope, and it is now spread over France, Great Britain, Italy, 
Sicily, Holland, and Germany. The thorn apple (Datura Stra- 
monium L.) originally brought from the East Indies and Abys* 
sinia, now grows as a common weed over nearly every part of 
Europe and the United States. The seeds of some plants are 
fitted to sail on the water, and in this way are driven from con- 
tinent to continent. Others have hooks attached to them, so 
that they may cling to the hairy coats of animals and be thus 
dispersed. 

To this migratory class of organized beings, man belongs. It 
is easy to conceive how he might have originated in a particu- 
lar spot, and in the course of a few ages have been spread over 
the globe, as we now find him to be. We are not aware that 
any of those naturalists who believe the varieties of men to con- 
stitute different species, created in the regions they now occupy, 
deny at all the possibility of distribution from one point ; but 
they found their opinion upon other considerations. 

But in the second place, the greater part of animals and 
plants are confined to particular districts oi the globe ; so that 
the earth is divided into a large number of distinct zoological 
and botanical provinces, each one of which is distinguished by 
several peculiar species. The most distinct of these provinces 
are separated by wide oceans, or are situated in different zones ; 
but sometimes a range of mountains merely forms the dividing 
line. The difference between the plants and animals of the 
several zones on the globe, has long been well known ; and it 
may be supposed that all the peculiarity of any particular zoo- 
logical or botanical province depends upon the latitude. But 
thjs is not the &ct ; for the productions of countries on different 
continents, between the same isothermal lines, do not correspond ; 
certainly not as to species. Thus, of the 2891 species of plants 
described by Pursh in the United States, only 385 occur m the 
temperate parts of Europe. New Holland is remarkable for 
the peculiarity of its Fauna and Flora ; the plants and animals 
found there being almost without exception different from those 
in other parts of the world. So the animals of America are 
strikingly different from those of the eastern continent. The 
number of zoological provinces on the globe has been estimated 
at eleven, and the DecandoUes, father and son, than whom no 
better judges can be named, reckon the number of distinct bo- 

VoL. XI. No. 29. 3 



18 Historical and Oeological Debigei. [Jan. 

tanlcal provinces at twenty-seven. This estimate was the result 
of an examination of seventy or eighty thousand species. 

In the early days of natural history, travellers expected to 
find the same animals and plants in distant countries as in their 
own ; and often they fancied resemblances where later observa- 
tions have shown only a sort of family likeness, but not a spe- 
cific identity. Even Linnaeus maintamed that all the species 
of animals and plants were originally placed on one fertile spot, 
fit>m whence they subsequently migrated, so as to fill the earth. 
But the facts of the case were then too imperfectly known to 
enable even the strongest and most impartial mind to arrive at 
a correct conclusion. Naturalists now almost universally sup- 
pose that each species was indigenous to one particular spot, 
and that different species were placed in different spots, nom 
whence they have spread to a greater or less distance. So that 
when they find a species on dmost every part of the globe, 
they iinmediately begin to seek out its birth place and the means 
of its dispersion. 

From these facts we trust our readers will be able to estimate 
the force of the objection under consideration. If aU animals 
on the face of the globe were destroyed by the deluge, except 
those preserved in the ark, then the existing races must have 
migrated from the region of Ararat to their present stations in 
the remotest parts of the globe. But facts show that with few 
exceptions they are confined to particular regions ; and where 
we find the same animal in distant spots, we also find it in inter- 
mediate places. If all proceeded from one point after the de- 
luge, we should have expected to find traces of their exbtence 
along the path of their migration. Again, if this dispersion took 
place naturally, how could species adapted, as we now see the 
greater part are, to a particular climate, have been sustained 
while they were gradually moving through regions unpropitious 
to them, to that spot for which Providence intended them ? 
By what instinct could they have been guided to countries often 
several thousand miles distant 7 And especially, how could the 
tropical animals of America have reached their present abode, 
without passing through the Arctic regions around Behring's 
Strait, where such animals could not now survive a week ? And 
there are many other cases where the difficulty of transporta- 
tion must have been equally great. 

To reconcile this objection with the history of Noah's deluge, 
as it is usually understood, is, indeed, no easy task ; that is, if 



1838.] HUtarical and Oeohgkai Detuges. ] 9 

we suppose pairs of all animals on the globe were actuaUy pre- 
served in the ark and the deluge was strictly universal. Some, 
we know, will cut the knot at once, by imputing the whole to 
the miraculous power of God — and we readily admit that this 
was sufficient if exerted — but we do not think it necessary to 
resort to such an agency in order to vindicate the Scriptures : 
and as a resort to miracles rarely satisfies, although it may si- 
lence skeptical minds, we shall suggest two hypotheses which 
we regard sufficient to meet the difficulty. 

In the first place, the deluge may not have been universal. 
We have alreaay endeavored to show that the V*pMn*b^ (Gen. 
8: 9) over which the waters are said to have flowed, may have 
been equivalent to the oixovfuvti of the New Testament ; that 
is, the whole world so far as men inhabited it. And if this be 
admitted, the animals that existed m remote countries may not 
have penshed ; while those saved in the ark fiimisbed the stock 
for repeopling the regions which the flood had destroyed. Such 
an interpretation has had its advocates, ever since uie days of 
Quirini, in 1676 ; and we are confident that it may be main-* 
tained without straining or perverting the sacred record at all ; 
though we feel some difficulty with it on geological grounds : 
that is, we can hardly see why a deluge extensive enough to 
overwhelm the outovfitvti, should not sweep over other parts of 
the world. 

In the second place, a new creation of animals and plants 
may have taken place subsequent to the deluge. We admit 
that the Scriptures are silent on the subject, and therefore they 
leave us free to reason concerning it from philosophical considera* 
tions. If it be admitted that the language of Scripture respect- 
ing the deluge is to be Umited to the region, probably not ex- 
tensive, whbh was occupied by man, and to the animals with 
which he was most familiar in those regions, we should not 
expect, that in giving an account of what took place after the 
deluge, they would describe the animak and plants of other parts 
of the world, even if they were then first created : For in this 
case, it would have been necessary to communicate a know- 
ledge of the geography of the globe ; or in other words, to an- 
ticipate future discoveries in that science. And tliis would 
have been foreign to the object of revelation, as indeed would ' 
any account be of the animals and plants of remote regions, or 
of oiganic remains in the rocks. It ought also to be recollected, 
that the sacred writers use almost the same language to describe 



20 HUtoricdl and Oeohgtcai Deluges. [Jait. 

the original creation of the matter of the universe, as the succes- 
sive production of animab and plants by ordinary generation ; 
since they looked upon both as equally the work of God. A 
passage in the 104th Psalm will illustrate this idea, (vs. 29, 30) : 
jThouhidest thy facey they (animals of every kind) are troubled : 
thou takest away their breathy they die and return to their dust. 
Thou sendest forth thy Spirit ^ they are created: and thou re- 
newest the face of the earth. Now we cannot but see the re- 
semblance between this description and that of the original cre- 
ation in Genesis. The same Spirit is concerned and the same 
word used, viz. e^na . It very well describes, also, those suc- 
cessive destructions and renewals of animal races, which geolo- 
gists maintain are shown by the history of organic remains, to 
have taken place on the globe. Yet commentators generally 
suppose that this passage describes only the ordinary destruc- 
tion and renewal of the animal races, which is daily taking place 
by what are called natural laws. 

The inference we wish to make from such facts as these, is, 
that even though new species of organized bemgs were from 
time to time created, it would not be strange that it should not 
be noticed in the Scriptures, if the mention of it did not fall in 
directly with the great moral object of the Bible ; since the in- 
spired writers would not regard such an exercise of Divine 
power as scarcely more illustrative of the perfections of Jehovah, 
than the ordinary and continual reproduction of animals and 
plants. 

Suppose now, that naturalists should find reason to conclude 
that new species of animals and plants do occasionally appear on 
the globe ; would there be any inconsistency between such a fact 
and the Scriptures ? Must we believe that the creation of all 
animals and plants, that ever have existed, is described in the 
Bible ? We think it almost certain, as we have shown in 
another place, (Bibl. Repos. Vol. VI. p. 309,) that the animals 
and plants found fossil are not described in Genesis. And nat- 
uralists think that there are some cases in which a new species 
of animal is introduced in modern times ; as in those instances 
where animals or animalculae are found only in some substance 
that has been discovered by a chemical process in modern 
times.* We do not regard the examples which they cite as 
entirely satisfactory : But the' enormous multiplication of the 

* Bluinenbach's Manual of Naturul History, p. 27G. London, 1825. 



1838.] Hiitarical and Oeohgical Deluges. 21 

frogs of Egypt, sometimes mentioned by commentators as an 
example of a new creation, seems explicable by natural laws 
but with great difficulty. And such examples, in connection 
with our previous reasoning, go to take away all improbability 
from the conclusion, that there was a new creation immediately 
subsequent to the deluge. 

Evidence is derived from geology that several catastrophes, 
which have in early times taken place on the globe, by which 
entire races of organized beings have been destroyed, have been 
followed by the creation of new races. Sometimes a few spe- 
cies seem to have survived the catastrophe, or have been repro- 
duced ; but in general, those created aner the catastrophe have 
been different from those destroyed by it. Here then, it seems 
to us, we obtain a still stronger presumption that the diluvial 
catastrophe described by Moses was followed by an analogous 
new creation, so far as it was necessary to repeople the world, 
or to adapt organized beings to changes in climate and other 
circumstances. The numerous examples of new creations which 
Palaeontology iiimishes, show us that such is the law of the 
Divine administration. 

Another consideration renders still more probable the idea of 
a new creation subsequent to the deluge. It does not appear 
from the sacred records, that any provision was made in the aik 
for the preservation of plants or seeds. Now there are very 
many species that would have been entirely destroyed by being 
covered with water for a year ; as will be evident to any one 
who has noticed how a flood of a few weeks will ruin many 
plants on which the water rests. They cannot survive so long 
without the access of air. The diluvial waters, therefore, must 
have destroyed the germinating principle in numerous instances ; 
and unless the postdiluvian flora be more scanty than the ante- 
diluvian, as we have no reason to suppose, — these last species 
must have been recreated after the waters had retired. 

These several circumstances do not prove certainly that such 
a creation did take place. But when we connect them with 
the fiicts that have been detailed, respecting the present distri- 
bution of organized bemgs, which are totally at variance with 
their having spread except miraculously from one point, and 
when we consider fiirther, that the Scriptures leave us at entire 
liberty to suppose such a creation, the hypothesis certainly 
appears probable enough to form a satisfactory reply to the 
objection under connderation ag^nst the scriptural account de- 



22 Hiitarical and Oeotogical Debsget. [Jan. 

rived fixHn the present distribution of organized beings. Some, 
however, have thought that it would be still more satisfactory 
to combine both the hypotheses which we have named. They 
would admit a new creation, and also suppose that the deluge 
was not universal. We do not feel anxious which of these 
three modes of relieving the difficulty is adopted. But one of 
them at least seems to us indispensable. 

4. It only remains J as the fourth general branch of our sub- 
ject y to inquire whether any natural causes could Jiave produced 
the deluge. 

It is well known, that from the earliest times, writers have 
indulged in speculations on the natural causes of this event ; 
while to many, such an inquiry seems ahnost sacrilegious ; since 
they suppose the deluge to have been strictly miraculous. Had 
the sacred writers distinctly informed us that such was the fact, 
all philosophical reasoning concerning that event would have 
been presumptuous and useless. But since the Bible is silent 
on this point, and since we know it to be a general principle in 
God's government, not to superadd to natural agencies a mirac- 
ulous energy where the former is sufficient to accomplish his 
purposes, we are surely at liberty to inquire whether any forces 
exist in nature sufficient, by their unaided operation, to produce 
such a catastrophe. In giving a history of opinions respecting 
the deluge, we have exhibited a variety of hypotheses on this 
subject ; but most of them are too evidently baseless to need 
a formal examination. We shall therefore mention only those 
that are still advanced by respectable writers of the present day. 

1. Some impute the deluge to the approximation of a comet 
to thQ earth, or to an actual appulse of the two bodies. On 
this hypothesis it is not necessary to add any thing to what we 
have stated in giving the history of opinions concerning the 
deluge, (Bibl. Repos. Jan. 1837. p. 107.") The &ct, now well 
ascertained, that the comets are not solid bodies, and for the 
most part are only very attenuated vapor, certainly renders this 
hypothesis entirely untenable. And we can explain the circum- 
stance that some writers still cling to it, only by supposing them 
ignorant of the facts, or strangely perverted in their judgments 
by the influence of hypothesis. 

2. Some suppose that the deluge was caused by the sinking 
down of the antediluvian continents beneath the ocean, and the 
elevation of our present continents above the waters. Such an 
event would, indeed, produce a complete and universal deluge ; 



1888.] ESstarical and Oeologicd Beluga. 33 

and a certain class of writers, as we have seen in a former num- 
ber of this work, (Bibl. Repos. Jan. 1837. p. 106,) maintain 
this theory with great confidence. They are writers who are 
greatly scandalized by the effi}rts of geologists to show that a 
long interval may have elapsed, undescribed, between the 
' beginning' and the six days of creation, lest too great latitude 
of interpretation should thus be allowed in biblical exegesis. 
And yet this hypothesis of theirs requires them to admit, con- 
trary to what every child sees to be the troth in readmg the 
Bible, that the waters of the flood did not first rise over the land 
and then subside, leaving the same land dry ; but that the land 
sunk down, which brought over it the ocean, and that other 
contbents rose in other parts of the globe to form new habita* 
tbns for organized beings. Hence they must further admit, that 
there must at that time have been an entirely new creation bf 
plants and many animals. Also, that the description of the 
garden of Eden in Genesis is not a part of the Bible, but an in- 
terndation ! Surely, men who can take such liberties as this 
with the Bible, where its language is plain and simple, should 
be cautious in condemning others for a more liberal interpreta- 
tion of some passages which have always perplexed the critic. 
And further, tnis supposed bterchange of land and water at the 
epoch of the last deluge, is contrary to many facts in geology ; 
such as for instance, the occurrence of the remains of land ani- 
mals on all existing continents, imbedded in the higher strata* 
Tertiary deposites also, are frequent whose strata are hc^zontal, 
and whose level therefore cannot have been essentially altered 
since their deposition ; for otherwise they would have been 
tilted up. Yet these depositee were made anterior to the last 
geological deluge, because its relics are strowed over them* 
But in giving a history of this subject, we have already entered 
so fiiDy into the arguments respecting this hypothesis, that we 
forbear lest we should be repetitious. 

3. Another hypothesis imputes the deluge to the sudden 
elevation of the bottom of the ocean, so as to throw its waters 
over a part, if not the whole, of existing continents. No fact 
is moie generally admitted, by those conversant with geology, 
than that our present continents once constituted the bottom of 
the ocean, ana that almost equally certain is it, that difierent 
continents and difierent parts of^the same continent, were eleva- 
ted above the waters at different epochs. A distinguished French 
geologist, who has paid much attention to this point, thinks he 



34 Historical and Geological Deluges* [Jan. 

can distinguish as many as twelve of these epochs among the 
rocks of Europe, and there are several obvious in this country. 
It is generally admitted, also, that these elevations took place 
suddenly ; that is, they resulted from a paroxysm of internal 
power. Let us now imagine a continent, or even a single 
mountain chain, to be raised fiom the ocean's depths in a few 
days, or a few weeks. There can be no doubt but the waters 
would be driven in mighty waves over those continents, or at 
least over that part of them which was previously above the 
waters. Suppose, for example, that the bed of the northern 
ocean were to be thus lifted up over a vast area, by volcanic 
agency beneath, that is, by the accumulation of vapor and gases 
beneath the earth's crust. The result would be, that the waters 
of the northern ocean, with the vast masses of ice there accu- 
mulated, would be driven in a southerly direction, at least over 
the northern hemisphere. After the fractured crust had per- 
mitted the pent up gases, vapors, and lava, to escape, it would 
gradually subside, and thus bring back the diluvial waters to 
their former beds in a quiet manner ; and thus, ere long, all 
traces of the catastrophe would disappear, unless the aqueous 
currents should have been powerful enough deeply to denude 
the surface and transport diluvium and bowlders. Now we 
know that volcanic power does frequently operate in this very 
manner. Witness the new island of Sabrina, which, in 1811, 
was rabed near the Azores, and gradually sunk back again after 
a few days : also, in 1831, the island of Hotham, or Graham, 
in the Mediterranean, which has also disappeared. 

We are not anxious that our readers should believe thb to 
have been the mode in which the Noachian deluge was pro- 
duced. Our main object is to show that a natural cause exists 
sufficient to have produced that castastrophe, and thus to take 
away all improbability respecting the occurrence of such an 
event fix>m its supposed physical impossibility. This is, how- 
ever, the hypothesis respecting the cause of the Mosaic deluge, 
that is now extensively adopted by able geologists. Some have 
imputed it to the elevation of the Andes, others to that of the 
Alps. It seems to us, however, that there is every probability 
these mountuns were nused from the ocean at an earlier period 
than that of the scriptural deluge ; and if the deluge of geology 
be regarded as identk^, the waves produced by the lifting up 
of those mountains would not have flowed in a direction corres- 
ponding to the course which we have shown the waters of that 



1888.] Hutarical and Qeological Dduges. S5 

cataclysm to have taken. It b sufficient, however, to show, 
that geologists in general are now willing to admit that this cause 
is sufficient to deluge the globe. For, a few years since, it was 
thought that science could demonstrate the physical impossi- 
bility of such an event. We do not contend that this hypothe- 
s'ls is free from difficulties, or that it is to be received as estab- 
lished truth. But we maintain that it is in perfect conformity 
with the present state of geological science. 

Were we disposed to speculate still further, we might suggest, 
that perhaps in this hypothesis, we find a cause for thepower- 
fid rain of forty days that accompanied the deluge. For it is 
well known, that the vast quantities of aqueous vapor that are 
liberated when a volcano gets vent, sometimes produce long 
continued drenching rains. If a powerful eruption took place 
in northern regions, the vapor set free could be rapidly ccxi- 
densed by the cold, and fall in the form of snow or rain, possi- 
bly for a period as long as that described by Moses. But we 
would not lay much stress on this suggestion. 

We here close our protracted comparison of the historical 
and geological deluges. We are aware that we have conducted 
our readers, — if indeed they have not grown weary and aban- 
doned us, — through a great deal of what they may consider 
dry detail. But we have long been satisfied that the superficial 
and popular view of this subject, which is usually presented, 
does not bring the true state m the question before the mind, 
while it tends to prejudice still moro against revealed truth, those 
acute minds who see how shallow and defective is the argu- 
ment. If any one will thoroughly understand the subject, he 
must submit to the labor of getting acquainted with the details ; 
and instead of having presented too many of these for this pur- 
pose, we know that our reasoning will often appear obscure and 
inconclusive, because we have not presented more. We shall 
now close by presenting a summary of the conclusions at which 
we have arrived. 

We have endeavored to show, that the traditions found in all 
ages and in all nations, civilized and savage, respecting deluges, 
had probably a common origin, viz. the deluge of Noah ; though 
the facts were often blended with the history of local deluges. 

We have shown that most extraordinary revolutions of opin- 
ion have taken place respecting the geological deluge ; and have 
reduced the opinions of standard writers of the present day on 
this subject to three classes : first, some deny that any traces of 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 4 



5W Historical and Geohgical Deluges. [ Jak. 

a general deluge exist on the globe : secondly, others admit a 
general deluge to have taken place, but place the epoch of its 
occurrence anterior to the creation of man ; and thirdly, some 
not only admit such a catastrophe to have taken place, but sup- 
pose it possible it may have been identical with that of Noah. 

We have attempted to prove, that those who believe there 
are at present no traces in nature of Noah's deluge, are not 
therebv brought into collision with the Bible. 

In doing this, we have shown that the organic remains in the 
secondary and tertiary rocks could not have been deposited 
there by the Noachian deluge ; and that we are to look for the 
traces of that event only on the surface of the globe. Also, 
that the Mosaic account does not require us to presume that 
any marks of that catastrophe would remain to the present time. 
But yet, that the frequent occurrence of deluges in early tiroes, 
as shown by geology, Aimishes a presumption in favor of that 
described in Scripture. 

We have shown, that there has been a powerful rush of wa- 
ters over the northern hemisphere, especially America, from the 
north and north-west, in comparatively modem times ; as is 
proved by the direction m which bowlders and diluvium have 
been transported, and by grooves and scratches on the surface 
of rocks, as well as by denuded vallies of considerable depth. 

We have inferred that this geological deluge corresponds with 
that of Scripture, in having been extensive, if not universal, and 
in having taken place in comparatively recent times : and that 
therefore, it is possible the two deluges may have been identi- 
cal ; though the evidence at present rather preponderates against 
this opinion. 

In considering the objections derived from geology and natu- 
ral history against the Mosaic account of the deluge, we have 
concluded that no natural processes have been pointed out on 
the globe, whose commencement can be proved to have been 
at an earlier date than that event ; though in some instances 
they might have begun before the flood, and have been sinoe 
recommenced. Also, that the present state of geological theo- 
ries renders the submersion of the globe by the flux and reflux 
of the waters c|uite possible and probable. Also, that we can 
explun the existence of the olive in the region of Ararat at the 
time of the deluge and its subsequent extinction, without resort- 
ing to a miracle. Also, that the language of Scripture does not 
necessarily mean that pairs of all animals on the globe, zoologi- 



1888.] ERitarical md Geahgkal Deku^es. £7 

cally considered, were preserved in the ark ; nor that the flood 
was universal over the globe, but onlj in the regions where 
man dwelt ; and hence that we are not required to suppose that 
all animals now on the globe have spread from the regions of 
Ararat. Also, that there may have been a new creation of 
many species after the deluge ; so that the facts respecting the 
present distribution of animals, does not conflict with the Mosa- 
ic account. 

Finally, in inquiring whether any natural causes could have 
produced the deluge, we have shown that of the three hypoth- 
eses maintained in modern times on this subject, the sudden ele- 
vation of a mountain or continent by internal ibrce, is the only 
one that can be defended with any plausibility ; since the ap- 
proach of a comet to the earth could have produced no such 
effect, and the idea that our present continents were raised from 
the bottom of the ocean at that time, is contradicted both by 
Scripture and geology. 

If these conclusions be admitted, every reasonable man will 
allow, that the Mosaic account of the deluge stands forth fairly 
and fidly vindicated from all collision with the facts of science. 
Nay, a presumption is hence derived in favor of the Mosaic ac- 
count. We are aware that some will be disappointed if we do 
not go further, and say that geology strikingly confirms the Mo- 
saic history, as it has been customary to do m most of our pop- 
ular treatises on the deluge. But we prefer to take our stand 
on firm ground. And notwithstanding the multiplied evidences 
of diluvial action which geology presents, the difficultv of iden- 
tifying these cataclysms with the Noachian deluge, is so great 
in the present state of our knowledge, that it is safer to consider 
the point as unsettled. Nor is this of much importance, so far 
as revelation is concerned. The truth and inspiration of the 
Bible rest on a foundation of evidence, independent of physical 
science, too deep and firm to need the auxiliary support of geol- 
ogy, or natural history. If we can only show, that there is no 
collision between the facts of revelation and those of science, 
we have done all that is necessary or important. If any remain 
skeptical after this is done, the cause of their infidelity does not 
lie in any scientific difficulties, nor in the want of independent 
evidence to the truth of the holy Scriptures. It is the fiuit of 
a corrupt and unhumbled heart. 



28 Study of the CXastict. [Jan* 



ARTICLE II. 

The Utility of the Study or the Classics to 
Theological Students. 

Bj J. Paektrd. 

The utility of the study of the classics in a college course is 
now hardly questioned. Their claims have been advocated with 
so much ability, the decision in their favor has been so unani- 
mous, that we may hope the question is put at rest, and not 
likely to be soon agitated even in an age so fond of innovation 
as the present. 

But we fear their importance to the theological student is not 
fully recognized, ebe we should not with pain witness so uni- 
versal, and so systematic a renunciation of their study on leaving 
college. 

All history shows that where profane learning has languished, 
sacred learning has sympathized with it. The one has always 
been the handmaid to the other, and they have ever gone hand 
in hand. They sank together in the dark ages ; together they 
rose like the twin lucida sidera of the heavens, when " the 
sacred Bible was sought out of the dusty comers where profane 
falsehood and neglect had thrown it, the schools opened, and 
divine and human learning raked out of the embers of forgotten 
tongues."* Religion has ever been a friend to profane learning, 
and never do her misguided friends do her more bjury than 
when they denounce their union. "It was the christian 
churchy^ Bacon well says, " which amidst the inundations of 
the Scythians on the one side from the north-west, and the Sar- 
acen from the east, did preserve m the sacred lap and bosom 
thereof, the precious relics of heathen learnings which other- 
wise had been extinguished, as if they had never been.^f We 
hold to the positions, that there cannot be too much human 
learning if it is but sanctified ; that religion lends to learning her 
highest finish, and most excellent grace ; and, that every thing 
may be rendered subservient to the illustration of divine truth. 
Profane learning may embellish sacred. To use the quaint 

• Milton. ~" ' 

f Advancement of Learning, p. 52. London Edit 



1838.] Shtdy of the Claiiici. 99 

DlustratioDS of the fathers : The Egyptians may be spo3ed of 
their gold and silver and fine garments in which they trusted, 
the sword may be wrested from Goliath's hand to cut off his 
own head,* and Hiram with his Tyrians and uncircumcised ar- 
tificers may be employed to build a temple to Jehovah's glory. 
The most insidious blow ever aimed at Christianity was the 
edict of the emperor Julian, forbidding the classical authors to 
be taught and explained in christian schools. This malignant 
enemy of Christianity was sagacious enough to see that if the 
study of the classics was neglected, the true method of inter- 

Jreting the Bible would soon be lost ; legitimate principles of 
ermeneutics would soon be forgotten, and Christians would 
resort to scholastic subtleties, find no end or bottom in specula- 
tion after departing from the simplicity of the text, and at length 
sink down into absurd superstitions.f The fathers took the 
alarm at once, and used all their effi)rts to counteract so malig- 
nant a design. Several of them composed Greek and Latin 
manuals, and even wrote poems and works on sacred subjects 
which would compensate m the best manner possible, for the 
loss of the classics. Augustine % expressly classes this decree 
among the persecutions of the Christians by Julian. 

Augustine advises that we should spoil the heathen authors of 
their precious illustrations, and embellishments, and make them 
subservient to the preaching of the gospel.^ He speaks figu- 
ratively of Cyprian as having robbed the Egyptians oi their gold 
and silver and fine linen. Augustine, though unacquainted with 
Hebrew and Greek, always strenuously recommended their stu- 
dy. || Gregory Nazianzen thus speaks : '^ Learning holds the 

* '^ iDtorqaere de manibus hostium gladium et Goliae superbiMi- 
mi caput proprio roucrone truncare." — Jerome. 

t ^ Aa soon as the study of languages languiabed after the days of 
the apostles, the gospel faith, and the whole of religion declined, and 
maoy grievous errors and blind superstitions arose from ignorance of 
the languages. On the other hand, when the languages revived, the 
gospel shed abroad a glorious light, and accomplished so much, that 
the whole world looked on in surprise, and was forced to confesSf 
that we had the gospel almost as pure and unadulterated as the apos- 
tles."— Epist. 0pp. T. XIX. 399. Lips. 

t De Civlt. Dei, Lib. XVIIL c. 52. 

§ De Doctr. Christiana, Lib. IL 60. 

I Neque enim ex Hebraea lingua, quam ignoro. Origan's acquain- 
tance with Hebrew is very suspicious. Jerome of all the &thera 



80 Study of the CUu$ic$. [Jan. 

first place among human blessings. I do not only speak of 
christian learning but of profane, which common uhristians, 
from a mbguided judgment, hold in contempt as insidious, dan- 
gerous and withdrawing the afiections from God.""* So thought 
the reformers, especially Loither. His testimony is very em- 
phatic. He says : " If by our fault we lose the learned langua* 
ges by neglect, we shall lose the gospel.f Divine wisdom has 
revived classical learning for the sake of restoring the gpspel, 
which soon after arose from its ashes, and in this way over- 
threw the tyranny of papacy. For the same reason Greece is 
subjected to the Turks, that the exiled Greeks, dispersed through 
all nations, should carry with them the Greek language, and thus 
give others an opportunity of learning it. From this we infer, 
that we shall never preserve the gospel unless by the aid of the 
languages."! It would be difficult to make a selection fix)m 
the passages m Luther's works, all having the same sentiment. 
Similar were the sentiments of Melancthon and the earlier Ger- 
man theologians, though some of them have been falsely accus- 
ed of decrymg human learning. Melancthon remarks : '^ An 
unlearned theology is altogether an Iliad of evils. For it is 
an ill-digested system, in which points of great moment are not 
fiilly explained, those are confounded which should be kept dis- 
tinct, and again those are put asunder, which nature requires to 
be united. Such a system cannot but produce infinite eirorsi 
and endless divisions, because in such a want of arrangement, one 
understands one thing, and another another, and while each one 
defends his own fancy, divisions and contentions arise."^ How 

seems to have understood it the best — See Gesen. Gesehichte der 
Hebraischen Spracfae, p. 91. 

• Orat. XXX. Tom. 11. p. ^6. 

t ** Si culpa nostra commiserimus, at linguas eruditas neglectas 
amktamus, Evangelium amittemus.'* 

\ ** Nos evangelium nunquam retenturos esse, nisi fiat linguarum 
auxilio." 

§ ^ Omnino Ilias malorum est inerudita Theologia. Est enim con- 
iusanea doctrina in qua magnae res non ezplicantur diserte, miscen- 
tur ea, quae oportebat sejungi, rursus ilia, quae naturaconjungi postu- 
lat distrahuntur. Talis doctrina non potest non gignere infinitos 
errores^ infinitam dissipationem, quia in tanta confusione alius aliud 
inteUigit et dum suum quisque soronium defendit, ezistant oertamina 
el disMusionfls."— Tom. L p. 3S9. 



t83&] Study of the Oairia. 31 

faithfiil a picture of many systems of thedogy, not guarded and 
secured by scientific arrangement and therefore not proof agmnst 
fatal attacks ! Spener, one of the revivers of evangelical reli- 
gion in Germany, observes : " I know not any one of all human 
studies, in all departments of learning, which may not in its pro- 
per place become of real use to a student, if it is pursued with- 
out neglecting what is essential and if rightly applied.^' Again, 
Spener says : ^^ I wish all students were not only more pious, 
but more homed ; and on that account of those who are pious, 
the more learned is always the more acceptable. A christian 
student prays as earnestly for divine illumination, as if he re- 
quired no diligence of his own ; but he studies also with the 
same diligence as if his labors were to efiect every thing. For 
it were a presumption and tempting of God only to pray and 
then to await the divine illummation without one's own exer^ 
tions.'' Calvin weU remarks : " Scientia tamen nihil propterea 
^od inflat magis vituperanda est quam gladius si in manus fu- 
nosi incidat." — Learning is no more to be blamed for puffing 
up, than a sword, which fidls bto the hands of a madman. 

But not to multiply witnesses — all the reformers felt that 
even profiine learning was from God, and to be applied to his 
glory. The study of the classics familiarizes us with the spirit 
of antiquity, and thus assists us in the interpretation of the sacred 
Scriptures. Whatever calls off our minds from the present, and 
carries us back to the past, contributes to our right understand- 
ing of the spirit of the ancient world. As it is, we are so far 
separated fiom it, that we ferget that the ancients were men of 
like passions with us, having the same joys and griefs. We 
need to live intellectually in the ancient wodd if we would im- 
bibe its spirit. We must temporarily adopt their notions, their 
modes of thinking, feeling and expression. Their ways of life, 
their household, every day habits must become familiar to us. 
We must put ourselves in their situation and not look at them 
through the spectacles of our own peculiarities. This indeed 
requires a peculiar promptness and flexibility of mental habits, 
but it is also in a very considerable degree the result of long con- 
tinued study. The difficulty of transferring ourselves to the 
past is inc^reased m proportion the further we go back. Thus it 
is more difficult to drink in the spirit of the Pentateuch, com- 
posed in the veiy mfancy and morning freshness of the world, 
than that of Homer. The study of the latter, however, throws 
great light upon the former. Homer undoubtedly lived in Asia 



33 iShidy of the OatricB. [Jan. 

Mmor and under a simSar climate with Palestine. Tbb piox* 
imity of country would naturaUy lead to similarity of language, 
and above all to ^alogy in thought and expression. There b 
a sameness in human nature every where under the same degree 
of culture. Greater benefit may therefore be derived from a 
study of the Greek, than of the Latin classics. They are the 
more ancient, and their climate was more similar. 

Homer was in fact the secular Bible of mankind for many 
ages. It has been well said by one highly competent to judge : 
'' The Old Testament and the Iliad reflect light mutually, each 
on the other, and both in respect of poetry and morals, it may 
with great truth be said that he who has the longest studied, 
and the most deeply imbibed the spirit of the Hebrew Bible 
will the best undferstand, and the most lastingly appreciate the 
tale of Troy divine."* We are continually struck in reading 
Homer with ihe similarity of manners and spirit, and parallel- 
i3ms of language that constantly occur. 

To hold communion with the past, we must live not only 
inteUectually, but as it were physically in a foreign clime. 
To understand the Scriptures we must live under the burning 
sun of Palestine. Another heavens must be over our head ; 
another earth beneath our feet. We must live amidst its win* 
ter torrents, and its summer brooks-^ its deep ravines and its 
extensive caves -^ we must look upon its barren fig trees, its 
olives, its cedars — the glory of iJebanon, the excellency of 
Canxiel and Sharon. In a word we must be familiar with the 
objects, which suggested the pictures and imagery of Scripture, 
if we would think over the same thoughts with its writers and 
feel again their feelings. 

The study of the classics materially assists in the interpreta- 
tion of the Scriptures. As the same principles of interpretation 
are applicable to both, he will be, caeteris paribus, the best in- 
terpreter who has been accustomed to interpret the classics. 
The habits he has formed are just the habits which are needed 
for an interpreter of Scripture. Origen among the fathers strongly 
recommended the classics as an excellent preparatory disci- 
pline to the study of the Scriptures ; for errors b their interpre- 
tatiop, which the tyro at first would natui'ally make, would be 
less dangerous. The greatest masters of interpretation have at 

* H. N. Coleridge's Introduction to the Greek Clasaic Poeti, p. 74, — 
a book worthy of all praise. 



1838.] Study of the Oaaics. 33 

all times ooncurred in this opinion of the importance of the 
study of the classics — and one's habits of interpretation strengthen 
the judgment, ^ve it acumen and a discrimination of things 
that diflfer. Perhaps no faculty is more susceptible of cultiva- 
tion. Hence the great advantage of the study of the classics 
in eaily life. The habit of weighing and balancing evidence 
for or against a particular interpretation gives acuteness to the 
judgment even in moral decisions. 

And here we might remark that the Greek classics are par- 
ticularly mterestmg as written in the language of the New Tes- 
tament. We are aware there is a difference m the idiom, the 
moold in which they are cast, and even in the signification of 
individual words, out still no one will deny that we could not 
dispense with classical Greek in the interpretation of the New 
Testament. Luther's prediction, we doubt not, is substantially 
true that if Greek is lost, we shall lose the Gospel. Transla- 
tions would soon become obsolete, the streams would become 
more and more impure the further from the fountain head, and 
that too without remedy, or with any means of purifying diem. 
Like the schoolmen, theologians would resort to fanciful, alle- 
graical expositions, to subtleties, to endless quibbles, and gross 
darkness would brood over the world. 

The study of the classics has a well nigh marvellous effect in 
refining the taste, and quickenmg the sense of the beautiful. 
Now as so much of the Bible is poetry, how important that we 
should be conversant with the best ancient poets ! Though 
the language ts different, yet it admits of illustration and com- 
parison from the classic poets. We have but to turn to Lowth, 
Knapp and Grrotius to see how much may be borrowed from 
the classics to illustrate the Scriptures. The poetry of all na- 
tions has many points in common ; though it may difier in 
imagery and costume. In all alike, it is the language of excited 
feeling, and differs in the language of ordinary life not only m 
diction, but in the predominance of the imagination and fimcy. 
If this is so, the poetry of one nation may be illustrated fitxn the 
universal poetic language of others. Much of the Bible is in 
poetry for the sake of making a deeper impression than a dry 
didactic manner. He, who knew all the avenues to the human 
heart, for be. made it, has presented truth in such a way as to 
interest his intelligent creatures. 

He who is absolute master of this poetic language, wields a 
powerful instrument of persuasion. We have barely alluded to 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 5 



34 Study of the Classics. [Jan. 

the effects of the study of the classics upon the style. Para- 
doxical as it may first appear, they bring us back to the sim- 
plicity of nature, give us a distaste for false ornaments, the dtdcia 
vitia, which so often mislead the tyro and render our language 
better adapted to the comprehension of the uneducated. Their 
noblest works are continually warning us to be simple. Cicero 
says, ^^ In dicendo vitium vel maximum esse a mugari genere 
orationisy atque a cansuetudine communis sensus abhorre.'' If 
we follow such guides we cannot easily go wrong, or fall into 
dangerous errors of style.* 

We are sorry the classics have lost their ancient appellation 
of the humanities y such is their effect in humanizing man, that 
they preeminently deserve this title. The orations found in 
the Greek classics form the best model for the preacher. With 
one consent both antiquity and modem times have pronounced 
them the models which approach nearest perfection. They 
have gained the universal suffrage of all times and ages. They 
have reached the summit of well-nigh unattainable perfection, 
and are now gazed at afar off. We hesitate not to say, that if 
the orations of Demosthenes were critically, and aesthetiadly 
studied, they would go very far in giving the student a taste for 
real simplicity, they would cure him of the vulgar appetite for 
tropes and metaphors and flowers ; of seeking ornaments for 
their own sake ; of going out of his way for flowers, instead of 
plucking them if found in bis path. We speak that we do 
know, and testify that we have tried, that the faithful, ofl- 
re viewed study of one of Demosthenes's orations — that De Co- 
rona for instance — would do more to give the student right appre- 
hensions of true eloquence, than the study of all the worl^ in 
rhetoric in our language. The student who has never read 
bis orations will be astonished, as Rheinhard was, at his natural- 
ness, his simplicity and want of afl^tation and ornament. He 
was the model Rheinhard followed, and we would hold him up 
to the theological student as a safe one. Could his style of 
argument and warmth be copied, its success would be infallible 
over a modem audience. The style of no orator of antiquity 
could be so safely copied in the pulpit. We almost wish, 

• ^ Tanqaam scopulum sic vitea iosolena verbum," said Caesar. — 
We need not refer to the numerous rules of the same nature to be 
ibund in that moat invaluable compend of rhetoric, Horace's Are 
Poetica. 



1838.] Study of the Clasiics. 35 

though it may shock some of our readers, that the stereotype 
models of pulpit eloquence, particularly of the French school, 
might be fairly put an end to. The world would be no loser ; 
bombast would be exchanged for simplicity, and art for nature. 
Let but the preacher be as deeply imbued with his subject, 
with nothing but his subject, as Demosthenes was ; let him 
drop himself, as Paul did ; let him seek only to be understood 
and felt ; let him use that vehement reasoning, that ^< logic set 
on fire,^' which Demosthenes used, and with the Holy Ghost 
sent down finom heaven, he would do wonders in converting sin- 
ners from the power of Satan unto God. Perhaps the student 
even after a repeated perusal will not be fully prepared to sym- 
pathize with the glowing feelings of Wyttenbach,* who found 
nothing of eloquence in Demosthenes the first three readings. 
'' At the* fourth, an unusual and super-human emotion pervaded 
my mind. I could now see the orator at one time all ardor ; 
at another in anguish, at another borne away by an impulse 
which nothing could resist. As I proceed, the same ardor 
is kindled in my own mind, and I am carried away by the 
same impulse. I fancy that I am Demosthenes himself, stand- 
ing before the assembly, deiiverbg this oration and exhorting 
the Athenians to emulate the bravery and glory of their ances- 
tors* I can no longer read the oration silently, but aloud. "f 
Though the student may not be able to go all lengths with 
Wyttenbach, yet he will feel and admire the manner in which 
Demosthenes guns his purpose ; now by concentrated argument, 
hurled like a Uiunderbolt ; now by withering irony and sarcasm, 

* See Stuart's Diseertatioos on the Smdy of the Original Lan- 
guages of the Bible, p. 58. 

f Why is oot the De Coronft of Demoethenes studied more in our 
Colleges ? This one oration thoroughly mastered would do more for 
the mere acquisition of the Greek language, than a collectioD of scraps 
and beauties, from all the most eminent Greek orators. It is very impor- 
tant that a student should feel he has mastered some one author ; be^* 
sides, by hurrying from Lysias to Isocrates^ and from Isocrates to 
Demosthenes, he loses all that might facilitate his progress in any one 
author from ftmiliarity with his style. The use of Collectanea has a 
tendency to give miscellaneous, unsystematic and ill-digested know- 
ledge. The student collects a few vague ideas, some moral precepts, 
some jokes, and some accounts of battles, instead of habits of patient 
thought or an acquaintance with the general style of any one author. 



36 Study of the Ckuncs. [J Air. 

and thus attains the highest intellectual eminency the world has 
ever seen, that of 

" Wielding at will that fierce democratie, 
Shaking the areenal, and fulmining over Greece, 
To Macedon and Artaxerxes' throne."^ 

We would, were it practicable, that the classics could be studied 
to some limited extent in our theological seminaries as is the 
custom in Germany. But we fear it is out of the question. 
Short as is the term of our theological study, the youdi of out 
land are disposed practicaUy to make it shorter. Under the spe- 
cious plea, that the harvest is great, and the Lord hath need of 
them, they take a short cut in theology, and run before they 
are sent. They find when too late that they have deceived 
themselves and robbed their minds of that knowledge and ex- 
perience, by which they might have been thoroughly famished 
unto every good word and work. If the student in private 
would keep up his classical studies, the same object would be 
gained. 

And we would here remark, that the neglect of classical 
studies is to be attributed in some measure to the manner in 
which they are taught m the academy and college. The stu- 
dent, perhaps, never was interested in them ; he never thought 
of them otherwise than a hard lesson to be conned over, recited, 
and as soon as possible forgotten. He knew that Xenophon 
was easy Crreek, and Thucydides hard Greek ; but he never felt 
the inspiration, the freshness, the force, the truth to nature of 
the classics. He never looked to the living soul which ani- 
mates them. He never entered into their magic circle, was 
never initiated into these mysteries which are eminently g^ott^ij- 
€PTa fWPiTOiaiy^ which only have a voice and significancy for 
the initiated. 

** They have no ear, nor soul to apprehend 
The sublime notion and high mystery.'' f 

One of the most common pleas for the neglect of the classics 
is the want of leisure amidst the arduous duties of the ministry. 
But we fear indolence is generally at the root of the matter, 
the want of a true scholar-like feeling and spirit. The time 

* Milton's Paradise Regained, Book 1 V. 
f Milton's Coinus. 



1838.] Study of the Classics. 37 

required is not great ; the benefit in improving the style and 
tone of thinking, real and lasting. One hour a day redeemed 
fixHn relaxation, from company, or in any other way consistently 
with duty, would accomplish large results. It would keep alive 
dasncal studies, would enable the student to advance a step, 
and would add something to his intellectual opulence. We 
would ask the student to be honest with himself, and inquire 
whether an hour, not assigned to other duties, could be spent 
more profitably. That it is possible to find time even in the 
most fiuthful and laborious ministerial life, we learn in the case 
of Robert Hall. '^ He thought himself defective," his bbgra- 
pher remarks, " in a tasteful and critical acquaintance with the 
Ureek poets. He read the Iliad and Odyssev twice over ; pro- 
ceeding with nearly equal care, through nearly all the trag^ies 
of Sophocles and Euripides, and thence extended his classical 
reading in all directions. To the LAtin and Greek poets, onr 
tors, and historians, he devoted a part of every day for three 
years. He studied them as a scholar, but he also studied them 
as a moralist and philosopher, so that while he appreciated their 
peculiarities and beauties with his wonted taste, and carefully 
unproved his style of writing and bis tone of thinking by the 
study of the best models, he sujfered them not to depreciate his 
esteem for the moderns." * 

Another excuse, not now so frequently advanced as ibrmeriy, 
but perhaps not the less secretly entertamed, is found by the 
student in the danger to spirituality of mind from the study of 
the classics. That this is not necessarily the case might be 
shown from the examples of Calvin, Melanothon, and the 
frthers of the English church — men, who were the great lights 
of the age in which they lived, and whose works posterity will 
not willingly let die. Though they were men of various erudi- 
tion, though they had rifled tiie treasures of the old and mighty 
world, grappled with whole libraries and ranged the whole cir- 
cle of human knowledge, yet they bowed as low at the foot of 
the cross, and their piety was as simple, humble and childlike, 
as though they had just known, and known no more, than that 
the Bible was from God. 

But we need not enter the lists as apologists for profane 

* Gregory'b Life, p. 54. Aid. Edit — Pareau well remarks, ** Per 
QDiTerBum borum studiorum corBum, ne tunc quidemeas literas omit- 
tai negligatque, quaodo grayissima officia doctoris ebristiani habebiu 



38 Study of the Clonics. [Jan. 

learning. We are not set for its defence as was Bacon, who in 
his Advancement of Learning refutes in detail, the various 
objections against it. We are fallen on diflkrent times and dif- 
ferent circumstances. 

We fear that in most cases indolence will here be found to 
be at the bottom of such an excuse. Vitringa, whose spirit- 
uality was never questioned by those who knew him, thus 
spoke : ^' Tandem nemo cum ratione existimet diffusius hoc 
studii literarii genus inimicum esse pietati, mentemque distror 
here ab arctiore cammercio cum Deo in Oiristo per exercita- 
tionem vero fidei et meditationis. Sane qui hoc sibi persua- 
deant, segnitiei suae obtendant." In the same Prefiice to hb 
Observations, a most erudite and valuable work, he laments 
that whileHbe field of theology is so extensive, theological stu- 
dents confine themselves within such narrow bounds, stick at 
first principles, and ilo not go on unto perfection in knowledge : 
per integram vitam in ipsb haereant principiis.* 

We are fully persuaded that leammg may enlarge our views 
of truth without weakening our faith, that we may be learned 
ourselves without havmg a learned religion. 

It is a sad proof of our depravity, that the complacency in 
the exercise of our powers is unfavorable to that feeling of 
humility and that sense of our deep wants which draws us to 
the Redeemer. 

But yet such a union of deep piety and profound learning is 
not only practicable, but has actually been witnessed in the in- 
stances before alluded to. The spirit of the age as alien to 
such pursuits may be offered as an excuse by some. It is indeed 
a most restless, stirring age, as busy after the xl naivoregov as 
ever were the Greeks of Demosthenes's or Paul's time, an age 
of innovation and demolition. But for this very reason should 

• Buddaeus, one of the most learned men of his age, remariia : *^ It 
is of no use to conceal our diseases. When I look around, I am 
overwhelmed with grief, nay, am astooisbed, when I consider how 
few students come up to tbe expectations and wishes of the church. 
One reason is, that they spend so short a time at school, as scarcely 
to lay the foundation or learn the elements of theology, (quod commo' 
ranlwr hnvi admodum tempore in aeademiUs ; quod quidem addiseendis 
neeessaniSf aut fundcunentia fiU ponendis visi siiifficit,) So far from 
aspiring to high attainments, they scarcely catch a gliropse of the 
wide field, and ever after stick at first principles." Praef, ad Jsagogen 
' ad Tketdoguan Vrdoersam* 



1838.] lAterary hipottures. 39 

the student make a stand, and resbt such a spirit. Who is to 
do it if he does not, whose very business and profession is to 
regulate others, to be the light of the world, the salt of the 
earth in an intellectual, as well as in a moral and religious res* 
pect ? He would be treacherous to his cause were he to be 
carried with the multitude to do evil. Rather should he be a 
rallying point, rather should his voice be heard 

'^In worst extremes and on tbe perilous edge of battle."* 

But we would have all this knowledge sanctified. If there was 
the only alternative of doing the one, and leaving the other 
undone, we would say with Leighton, '' one devout thought is 
worth all human learning." Though we set great store by 
learning, yet we set for higher by devout piety ; we would have 
all the light possible from whatever source, concentrated upon 
the sacred page, till it glows and bums, tiU a more excellent 
glory gilds it. Then shall we find our studies profitable and 
availmg when all our ends are single — for truth — for Christ. 



ARTICLE III. 

LiTEBABT ImPOSTUBES. 

> 

By David Foidiek, jr. Bottoo. 



With no great effort at amplification this theme might be 
made to occupy a considerable series of historical volumes. Our 
readers may judge, therefore, how uncomfortable is the sense 
of compression which we experience in undertaking to consider 
it withm the limits of a few pages. 

In the first place, what are we to understand by the expres- 
sion literary imposture 1 Would it be an erroneous use oi lan- 
guage to denominate aU bad writers impostors ? Are we bound 
to employ milder terms than fraud, imposition^ in speaking of 
productions which under false pretences rob men of their time 
and their money ; which, not only serve no useful purpose, but 
efllect vast injury, ccmvey grossly distorted conceptions of tbe 

* Milton's Paradiae Lost, Book I. 



40 lAterary hipoiturei. [Jan. 

subjects which they treat, and falsify both facts and principles ? 
He who presents himself before mankind in print impliedly 
promises that it shall be worth a reader's while to give him au- 
dience. If performance does not equal promise, there is clearly 
a breach 6l faith, and readers are defrauded. The plea o( 
praiseworthy intent will perhaps be urged in bar. In very 
many cases, however, this pretension cannot be set up with 
any shadow of reason, the accused having written only to make 
a book for the sake of acquiring money, celebrity, or other like 
advantage to himself, without thinking of benefit to accrue to 
his readers ; and in most cases when the plea can be honestly 
urged against a harsh sentence for fidlure in performance, its 
validity is Questionable, since the intention to benefit mankind 
cannot at all exculpate a bad author, if it be his own fiiult that 
he is ignorant of his incapacity. How few bad writers would 
pass ^e ordeal of these observaticHis unscathed ; and what a 
large proportion of the books with which the world has heea 
deluged must, b consequence, be denominated literary ifopoi^ 
tures ! How many writers of professedly erudite '' folios, quartos, 
8vo6., twelves," have been almost utterly devoid of acquaintance 
with the subjects which they treated, perhaps extending their 
works in exact, but alas ! inverse, proportion to their know- 
ledge ! How many histories are there which well deserve to 
be ranked ^th the production of one Peter Comestor, whkh 
is termed bv Disraeli '^ a history of all things and a bad history 
of every thmg !" How many poets have ^^ poured along the 
town a flood of rhyme," which attracted notice, if at all, only 
on account of the extent or source of the inundation ! How 
many writers of every class say a great deal and mean nothing ! 
How many think they mean something, perhaps really do, but 
express themselves so obscurely as to sifect only the eye or ear, 
without insinuadng a particle of sense into the understanding ! 
There are men in our day who appear to be of the same mind 
as Lycophron, a Greek poet, who protested that he would hang 
himself if he found a pers<xi that could understand his ^' Cas- 
sandra." Were such men by chance to write somewhat which 
€ould be comprehended, and, upon discovering the slip which 
they had made, to hang themselves inconUnently, the world, I 
opine, could hardly be considered a loser. QuinctUian says that 
the obscurity of a writer is generally in proportion to his inca- 
pacity. The ancients seem to have outdone the modems (and 
certainly this is saying much,) m regard to obscurity of style. 



1638.] LUeriny bipasturei. 41 

It was inculeated by a teacher of rhetoric in Quioctilian's time 
as an ornament ; and he compelled his pupils to correct such 
passages of Uieir writings as were too intelligible. 
The words of Byron : 

^Tis pleasant, sure, to see one's name in print ; 
A book's a book, although there's nothing in't," 

are very true, and we might be content that the many who 
have been moved to their literary efibsions solely or chiefly by 
the prospect of this gratification, should enjoy it without censure, 
were it not that it is procured at an immensely disproportionate 
expense on the part of the public, -^ an expense which no prin- 
ciple of benevolence requires that it shoyld encounter. 

As will be presumed, however, it is not our intention to take 
the term literary imposture in this large sense. The attempt 
to collect and recount even the names alone of those who, 
through the ambition of appearing in the character of author, 
have perpetrated grievous impositions upon the good sense and 
patience of mankind, would be vain. 

Taking a more narrow, and therefore more suitable, view at 
our subject, we may conveniently, perhaps with exact precision, 
divide literary impostors into the following classes. 1. Such 
as appropriate to themselves the productions or the thoughts of 
others with the intent that they shall pass as their own. 
II. Such as attempt to give a false aspect to their own figments 
by incorrect ascription of their authorship. III. Such as pub- 
lish intentional untruth. 

The first class consists of writers commonly denominated, 
firom the Latb, plagiarists. 

It is not the case, however, that all borrowing is plagiarism, 
in any odious sense. A writer may derive hints from the pro- 
ductions of other men, without laying himself open to the 
slightest censure. Thus Milton, it is said, drew the suggestion 
of his Paradise Losf from an Italian drama or mystery ; and 
Danie that of his Inferno from the '' Vision" of Alberico. If 
the statement be true, it does not at all detract from the merit 
of either writer ; for the merit of neither depends at all upon 
that which they are supposed to have borrowed. Nor can any 
man, with propriety, venture to term it a disingenuous course 
to adopt an idea, even without acknowledgement, when the 
accompaniments and the costume, the things of main impor- 
tance, and which, indeed, gave the idea all its value, ware 

Vol- XI. No. 29. 6 



48 Literary b^pastures. [Jiif. 

original. Every one can see that such an adoption Is very dif- 
ferent from the silent, literal transfer of lines, sentences, or para- 
graphs out of another's production into one's own, or the silent 
appropriation of another's thoughts with a fraudulent attempt at 
concealment by alterations in the fonn of expression, by the 
destruction of the writing which is pillaged, or by any other like 
means. No writer can be said to act honorably, who borrows, 
in full consciousness that he is doing so, any important thought 
or expression without acknowledgement. Still, there have been 
men of considerable reputation, who could unblushingly advo- 
cate this species of robbery, and even inculcate the art of edit- 
ing it without incurring the hazard of detection. A French 
professor, named Richesource, published two books exhibiting 
the prbciples of authorship which he assiduously taught his 
pupils in his private lectures. The first of these books was 
entitled : " The Mask of Orators, or the manner of disguising 
with ease all kinds of composition." His definition of plagia- 
rism, as stated by D'Israeli, is as follows : '^ It is the art, or 
an ingenious and easy mode, which some adroitly employ to 
change or disguise all sorts of speeches of their own composition 
or of that of other authors, for their pleasure or their utility, in 
such a manner that it becomes impossible even for the author 
himself to recognize his own work, his own genius, and his own 
style, so skilfully shall the whole be disguised." The art he 
makes to consist in arranging the parts of a sentence in a diffe- 
rent Older, exchangmg one word or phrase for another which is 
equivalent, etc. Thus for probity a plagiarist would substitute 
religion or virtue ; for capacity, ability or eruditioTiy etc. His 
second work was denominated " The Art of Writing and Speak- 
ing ; or a method of composing all sorts of letters, and holding 
a polite conversation." At the close of the preface to this book 
he informs his readers, that authors who may be in want of 
essays, sermons, pleadings, letters or verses may be accommo- 
dated on ap[^cation to him. It seems he was resolved not to 
belie his name. A Richesource (rich source) he must have 
been indeed to indolent or incapable persons who desired to 
enjoy the reputation of authorship. 

It has been too general a practice among clergymen in all 
christian countries, least of all probably in ours, to appropriate 
to their own use, in preaching, the printed or MS. sermons of 
their more gifted or at least more prolific brethren. In England 
and France, perhaps in other countries, it is common for ser- 



1888.] Literary hnpostures. 43 

mcMis to be printed in a type resembling manuscript, for the 
purpose of general circulation among clergymen. 

Roilin, in his work on the Belles-Lettres, if we remember 
right, speaks of the practice prevalent in his time, of culling 
materials for sermons from the productions of the fathers, not 
only without censure, but with positive tokens of approbation. 

It is beyond doubt that many works of the ancients have been 
lost to the worid firora the anxiety of those who had pilfered 
out of them that thehr thefts might be concealed. In the mid* 
die ages, when copies of ancient works were extremely rare, 
the temptation was great, to one who came by accident into 
possession of a MS. which was most probably the only one in 
existence, to despoil it of its contents, ctroulate them in his own 
name, and destroy the evidence of his plagiarism. Many of 
the Withers, it is pretty certain, now stalk majestically in bor- 
rowed robes ; and many will probably retain their ill-gotten 
dignity down to the latest generations. Augustine is said to 
have been deeply indebted to Varro, a learned Roman writer, 
for the contents of his great work " The City of God ;" and to 
this circumstance we owe the loss of almost ^11 Varro's nume- 
rous and very valuable writings, they having been burned by 
Pope Gregory VII. to screen Augustine fh)m the charge of 
plagiarism. 

In later times Leonard Aretino, a scholar of eminence, hav- 
ing found a Greek MS. of Procopius on the Gothic war, trans- 
lated it into Latin and published it as his own production. It 
passed as such until the accidental discovery of another MS. of 
the same work revealed his fraud. 

We know that Cicero wrote a work in two books on Ohry ; 
for he refers to it himself in his treatise De Officiis.* Petrarch 
was in possession of it. He sent it to his preceptor, who, under 
the pressure of extreme poverty, pawned it, and died soon after 
without disclosing where it was. It was never recovered. 
Years afterward, this treatise of Cicero was noticed in a cata- 
logue of books bequeathed to a monastery. Search was made 
for it, but it could not be found. Peter Alcyonius, who was 
physician to the monastery, published a book De Exilioy which 
contained many splendid passages not at all of a piece with the 
rest of the production. It was therefore reasonably surmised 
that he had purioined the MS., applied to his own purpose such 

• L. II. c. 9. 



44 lAtermry inposiurei. [Jar. 

pam of it as were susceptible of such, application, and then de- 
stroyed it. 

In 1649 Barbosa, bishop of Ugento, obtained by accident 
an ancient work which he published in his own name under the 
title, De Officio Episcopi. The accident referred to was this. 
His attention was attracted to a leaf of MS. around a fish which 
was brought into his house by one of his servants. Being in- 
terested by the perusal of it, he searched for and procured the 
volume of which it formed a part, and published it as we have 
stated. 

We will mention a few instances of bold plagiarism in later 
days. Richard Cumberland published some excellent versions 
of fragments of the Greek dramatists, and long enjoyed the repu- 
tation of Greek scholarship, while, in truth, the learning he ex- 
hibited was almost all derived from MS. notes of his grand- 
father, the celebrated Dr. Bentley, respecting which notes he at 
first maintained entire silence. Ultimately, however, he acknow- 
ledged his obligation, being driven by a direct charge to the 
alternative of acknowledgement or the dangerous as wellj'as 
criminal commission of falsehood. 

Dr. Middleton was very much indebted to a Scotch writer 
named Bellenden in many parts of his famous Life of Cicero. 
As he was cautiously silent in regard to his Scotch benefactor, 
and the work of the latter, " De tribus luminibus," was exceed- 
ingly rare, the plagiarism was not exposed to the public gene- 
rally for a considerable time. It was, however, early whispered 
about among the learned, and at length Dr. Parr republished 
Bellenden's book, prefixing a preface partly occupied with re- 
marks on Middleton's unfair procedure. When Parr's expo- 
sure appeared, it occurred to the recollection of a gentleman 
who had been acquainted with Dr. Middleton, that, just before 
the publication of the Life of Cicero, he happened to ask Mid- 
dleton if he had seen Bellendenus, and that at the inquiry he 
faltered, grew pale, and acknowledged he had. Undoubtedly 
the rarity of Bellenden's work gave Middleton hopes of escaping 
detection. It is said that there were not then more than ten 
copies to be found in all the libraries of England. It was pub- 
lished on the C43ntinent, we believe at Paris, where Bellenden 
resided ; and the whole impression, with the exception of a 
few copies, was lost in a storm on the English coast, which 
drove the vessel containing it to the bottom. Such was its 
rarity, ihat it is not mentioned by some of the most noted bib- 



1838.] Utefary hfipoiturei. 45 

liognipbical writers^ Morhof, Scfaelhorn, etc. Middleton is 
charged by Dr. Parr and others, probably on just grounds, with 
the perpetration of numerous plagiarisms in other productions 
of his pen. 

The secret history of the authorship of literary productions 
would strip many a name of the reputation it enjoys, and place 
laurels on the brow of many a man who 

*^ In life's low vale remote bos pined alone, 

Then dropped into the grave, unpitied and unknowo !" 

Rank and wealth have obtained unmerited eminence in the lite- 
rary world, at the expense of the time and abilities of gifted 
dependents. The famous book called Eikon BasiKkiy which 
passed as the production of Charles I., is now known not to 
have been written by that king. It is supposed, though per- 
haps not satisfactorily proved, to have been written by one 
Gauden. Cardinal Richelieu, the French minister, employed 
a poet of the name of Chapelain to compose productions for 
him, which he circulated as his own, and which served to pro- 
cure him some little reputation as a &ie writer. Of this reputa- 
tion he is said to have been more jealous and more proud than of 
his statesmanship. Henry VIII. is supposed not to have been 
the author of the Latin work against Luther which passed 
under his name and procured him from Pope Leo X. the title 
of Defender of the Faith. Instances of this nature might be 
multiplied to a very great extent. 

Besides the influence exerted by station and riches over 
obscurity and poverty, othiBr circumstances have often led to 
incorrect ascriptions of the authorship of books. The work 
which passes under the name of HogartVs Analysis of Beauty 
was written for Hogarth by Dr. Morrell, as some say, or accord- 
ing to others by Dr. Hoadly. Of the noted Bampton Lectures, 
those delivered in 1784 by Dr. White, and published as his in 
one of the volumes of the series, were almost wholly the work 
of Dr. Parr and a t^lergyman named Badcock. Dr. White 
made use of the good offices of both his friends, without inform- 
ing either of the assistance given him by the other. Accident 
led Dr. Parr to the discovery of this course of double-dealing, 
and he immediately published a merciless disclosure of the facts. 
Raleigh's Historv of the World (so called) was in great part 
the production ol a Dr. Robert Burrel, who was confined with 
Sir Walter m the Tower during its composition. To him 



46 Literary bipoitures. [Jan* 

RsJeigh owed most of the recondite learning displayed in his 
History. There were likewise other contributors ; among them 
Ben Jonson. 

The following curious account respecting a literary debtor to 
others is given by D'Israeli. ^* Sir John I£ll owned to a friend 
once when he fell sick, that he had over-fatigued himself with 
writing seven works at once, one of which was on architecture 
and another on cookery ! This hero once contracted to trans- 
late Swammerdam's work on insects for fifty guineas. After 
the agreement with the bookseller he perfectly recollected that 
he did not understand a single word of the Dutch language ; 
nor did there exist a French translation. The work, however, 
was not the less done for this small obstacle. Sir John bargained 
with another translator for twenty-five gumeas. The second 
translator was precisely in the same situation as the first ; as 
ignorant, though not so well paid, as the knight. He borgamed 
with a third, who perfectly understood his original, for twelve 
guineas ! So that the translators who could not translate," 
says D'Israeli, " feasted on venison, and turtle, while the modest 
drudge, whose name never appeared to the world, broke in 
patience his daily bread ? The craft of authorship," he adds, 
" has many mysteries." 

The second class of literary impostors consists of forgers. 
To this class belong the authors of those impostures which may 
be denominated religio-literary forgeries. Such are the religious 
books of all pagan nations ; the Sibylline books of the Romans, 
the Koran of the Mohammedans, the Vedas of India, the Zend- 
Avesta, or living wordy of the Persians and Medians, our own 
apocryphal books, etc. Each of these religio-literary impos- 
tures would singly afibrd ample materials for an entire article. 
We shall content ourselves with this cursory mention of them 
and sweep them aside en masse. 

Turn we now to forgeries unconnected thus with religion. 
The number, unblushing impudence, and intricate ingenuity of 
such frauds task the power of belief. They are to be found in 
every department of literature. 

It was strenuously maintained by Father Hardouin, a French 
Jesuit of great learning, that nearly all the works ascribed to 
ancient authors in Greece and Rome were forged in the thir- 
teenth century. He excepted from thb singular imputation 
only the worfa of Cicero and Pliny the Elder, together with 
some of those which bear the repute of having been written 



1838.] Literary Bapostures. 47 

by Horace and Virgil. The idea was an extravagant one, and 
cannot for a moment be regarded with favor by any reflecting 
and well-regulated mind. It is not to be denied, however, that 
very many of the works which have come down to us as gen- 
uine productions of the ancient authors whose names they bear 
are most probably altogether spurious ; and that a far larger 
number of them have undergone interpolation to a greater or 
less extent. There is little reason to suppose that, of the de* 
ceptions practised by the monks of the middle ages in relation 
to the works of the ancients, those which have as yet eluded the 
sagacity and research of the learned will ever be detected. 
The probability of exposure is at least as much diminished by 
the lapse of time since the perpetration of the frauds and by the 
influence of prescription, as increased by the additional number 
of minds engaged in the examination of the Greek and Roman 
writers (so called) or by the new facilities offered to investiga- 
tion. Considering the character of the middle ages in regard 
to literature, we can hardly hope for any means of detecting 
frauds of this nature except intemal evidence in the productions 
themselves ; and, in most cases, this has long been estimated 
as correctly as possible, and a verdict given accordingly. The 
dim light with which the domgs of those days are and ever must 
be wrapt, revealing to view scarce anything but the more prom- 
inent political convulsions, though affording some casual glimpses 
of literary and social phenomena, will scarce suffice to direct 
our scrutiny into the lurking-places of those facts with which 
we might oppose and defeat the influence of prescription as to 
the genuineness of many works which are referred to the classic 
periods of Greek or Roman literature. 

Of the known forgeries since the Christian era and before the 
dawn of letters, we will make special mention of two or three. 
Philostratus, the philosopher, who flourished in the third cen- 
tury, composed a life of the celebrated impostor ApoUonius 
Tyaneus from records purporting to have been made by Damis, 
who was not only a contemporary of ApoUonius, but his friend 
and constant companion in travelling. That these records were 
spurious there is clear internal evidence. Among other things, 
the hero ApoUonius appears in Babylon, and thereupon a de- 
scription is given of that celebrated city, not a word of which is 
applicable to the period, as at that time Babylon was almost 
utterly desolate, its splendor having been long since absorbed 
by Seleucia. 



48 Literary biypaitures. [Jan. 

There is a history of the Jewish War, which passes under 
the name of Hegesippus, the Jew. He lived in the reigns of 
Antoninus and Commodus, i. e. in the latter half of the second 
century ; and yet mention is made in this work of Constanti- 
nople, Scotland, and Saxony ! 

Annius of Viterbo, or John Nanni, a Dominican friar of the 
fifteenth century, who was made master of the sacred palace 
by Pope Alexander VI., employed his leisure in the composi* 
tion oi fragments which he endeavored to palm upon the world 
as newly discovered remains of ancient writers. They were 
comprised in seventeen books of Antiquities, as he styled his 
forgeries, and bore the names of Sanchoniathon, Berosus and 
others. He subsequently added commentaries, composed mainly 
of forged passages ascribed to unknown authors. Tiiese. frag- 
ments and commentaries were for a while extremely well- 
received by many of the learned throughout Europe. The 
blunders which they contained finally led to the detecUon of 
their author. He died, however, without confessing the fabri- 
cation, and from his respectability and pertinacity the Antiquities 
have still been supposed by some to be genuine writings of the 
authors to whom he ascribed tliem, or at least to have been 
thus regarded by Annius. The Dominicans, that the stain of 
such a forgery might not attach to their order, asserted that 
Annius derived his publications firom a MS. belonging to the 
Colbertine library ; but the existence of such a MS. was never 
satisfactorily proved. The success of the forgery is somewhat 
remarkable, though its magnitude was not very great, the whole 
collection of Augments amounting to less than 200 pages. At 
their first appearance they excited deep interest. Four parties 
were speedily formed, one pronouncing them forgeries by 
Annius, a second declaring that they were forged before the 
editor's time, a third regarding them as partly genuine and 
partly interpolated by the editor, and a fourth sustaining their 
entire genuineness. 

The papal supremacy over the countries denominated the 
States of the Church originated in pretended grants made to the 
popes by Pepm and Charlemagne. There is no other proof of 
these grants than that contained in certain charters alleged to 
have been bestowed by Louis le Debonnau-e, Otho L and Hen- 
ry L Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts which have been 
made by some Catholic writers to sustain the authenticity of 
these charters, they are pretty generally regarded as having 



1638*] LUerary knpoiiure$. 49 

beeD krged to give color to the papal appropriation of the terri- 
tories referred to. In likemanner, deeds and inscriptions, designed 
to sustain the pretensions of the papal church in a momentous 
law-suit, were forged by the Spanish antiquary Medina Conde, 
and buried in the earth, where he knew they would soon be 
discovered. The decretals called the decretals ofhidare, which 
foimed the fundamental ground of the canon-law for eight cen- 
turies, were forged in the ninth century with a view to the 
maintenance of the papal authority. Isidore, archbishop of 
Seville, in whose name they were fabricated, died in ^6. 

Let us now descend to more modem times, and notice some 
of the most remarkable forgeries vhich they present to view. 
Precise chronological order in narrating them is not of conse- 
quence, and will not be sought. 

The first which we shall mention are those executed by one 
Joseph Vella in the latter part of the last century, an account 
of which we transcribe from D'Israeli. The source from which 
this account b derived is not stated by D'Israeli ; and we have 
not been able to discover it. In a French Biographic Univer- 
selle we find a narrative differing from his in some not very 
material points ; but, as Disraeli's is rather more circumstantial, 
we have chosen to rely on his authority. ^^ One of the most 
extraordinary literary impostures was that of one Joseph Vella, 
who, in 1794, was an adventurer in Sicily, and pretended that 
he possessed seventeen of the lost books of Li vy in Arabic. He 
had received this literary treasure, he said, from a Frenchman^ 
who bad purloined it from a shelf m St. Sophia's church at Con- 
stantinople. As many of the Greek and Roman classics have 
been translated by the Arabians, and many were first known in 
Europe in their Arabic dress, there was nothing improbable 
in one part of his story. He was urged to publish these long- 
desired books ; and Lady Spencer, then in Italy, offered to de- 
fray the expenses. He had the effrontery, by way of speci- 
men, to edit an Italian translation of the sixtieth book ; but that 
book took up no more than one octavo page ! A professor of 
oriental literature in Prussia introduced it into his work, never 
suspecting the fraud. It proved to be nothing more than the 
Epitome of Florus. He also gave out that he possessed a code 
which he had picked up in the Abbey of St. Martin, containing 
the ancient history of Sicily in the Arabic period, comprehend- 
ing above 200 years, and of which ages their own historians 
were entirely deficient in knowledge. Vella declared be bad a 

Vol. XI No. 29. 7 



50 Uterary Impoitures. [Jam. 

genuine ofBeiai correspondence between the Arabian governors of 
Sicily and their superiors in Africa, from the first landing of the 
Arabians in that island. Vella was now loaded with honors and 
pensions ! It is true he showed Arabic MSS., which, however, 
did not contain a syllable of what he said. He pretended he 
was in continual correspondence with friends at Morocco and 
elsewhere. The king of Naples furnished him with money to 
assist bis researches. Four volumes in quarto were at length 
published. Vella had the adroitness to change the Arabic MSS. 
he possessed, which entirely related to Mohammed, to matters 
relative to Sicily. He bestowed several weeks' labor to disfigure 
the whole, altering page for page, line for line, and word for 
word ; but interspersed numberless dots, strokes, and flourishes, 
so that when he published a fac-simile, every one admired the 
learning of Vella, who could translate what no one else could 
read. He complained he had lost an eye in this mbute labor; 
and every one thought his pension ought to have been increased. 
Every thing prospered about him except his eye ; which some 
thought was not so bad neither. It was at length discovered by 
his blunders that the whole was a forgery, though it had now 
been patronized, translated, and extracted, throughout Europe. 
When this MS. was examined by an Orientalist, it was discov- 
ered to be nothing but a history of Mohammed and his family. 
Vella was condemned to imprisonment." 

Captain Francis Wilford, an Ejiglishman of great learning, 
was imposed upon in a most remarkable manner, while resident 
in India, by a Hindoo pundit in whom he trusted too implicitly. 
His deceptions consisted of the alteration of individual proper 
names in Indian MSS. which he produced, the substitution of 
new leaves for the original ones, (no very difficult matter, since 
Indian books are not bound like ours, but are only loosely con- 
nected leaves,) and, in one instance, the forgery of two volumi- 
nous sections, containing 12,000 Slocas or stanzas, which he 
pretended to have faithfully extracted from the Puranas, and 
which were composed in exact imitation of their usual style. 
Many of these forgeries were communicated to Sir W. Jones, 
who, with all his learning and philosophical caution, saw no 
reason to doubt their genuineness. Captain Wilford published 
in the series of volumes entitled, " Asiatic Researches," several 
extensive essays which were more or less imbued with error 
(one on Egypt especially,) from the reliance which he placed 
on this masteriy imitator. The corrupted MSS. were preserved 



1638.] Literary hyfo$twrt$. 51 

by Captain Wilford^ and some years after the deception was 
efiectedy he accidentally observed something peculiar ip the 
appearance of the writing, which led him on, step by step, to 
a complete discovery of the imposition to which be had been 
subjected. His mortification, and his anxiety lest he should be 
regarded by the world as a participator in the fraud, threw him 
into a lingering disorder; As soon bs possible he dispatched 
letters to his friends in various parts of Europe, making them 
acquainted with the facts, which he also published to tiie world 
soon after m a paper contained in the 8th Vol. of the Asiatic 
Researches. When our notable pandit was accused of the 
fraud, he immediately flew into apparent paroxysms of rage, 
imprecating the vengeance of heaven upon his head if he were 
not entirely innocent. Afraid that this conduct might not be 
adequate to reinstate him in the good opinion of Captain Wil* 
ford, he produced ten Brahmms as his compurgators, who swore 
by every thing sacred in their religion that no imposition had 
been committed. All was of no avail. Reprimanding the 
Brahmins for their perjury. Captain Wilford rid himself at once 
of them and the pundit whose fraud they had attempted to 
sustain. 

All our readers without doubt know something respect* 
ing Lauder's temporary imposition upon the public relating to 
the originality of Milton's Paradise Lost. We propose to give 
a somewhat particular account of it, as minute details concern- 
ing it are not very generally accessible. 

It was in 1747, Uiat William Lauder first made his appear- 
ance before the world in the character of a detector of Milton's 
plagiarisms. In the beginning of that year he published in the 
Gentleman's Magazine with the initials of his name, W. L., a 
naper entitled : '^ Milton's Use and Imitation of the Modems." 
Notwithstanding his pretended regret at his discovery, deep 
malice was apparent in the manner in which he urged and dis- 
cussed the alleged obligation of Milton to other writers. This 
spirit induced a severity of inference on the part of Lauder far 
from being warranted by the circumstances asserted, even had 
they been true ; and three several replies appeared in the col- 
umns of the same magazine, all admitting the truth of the facts 
presented, but resisting, we should rather say deprecating, the 
asperity of Lauder's deductions from them. Emboldened by 
this impunity, (for impunity it was comparatively, considering the 
actual extent (h his criminality,) be, in the beginning of the year 



I 

52 Literary inpostures. [Jan. 

1750, in accordance with a promise contained in the paper just 
mentioned, published a larger essay under the same title as the 
smaller, but in a volume by itself. This work was adorned with 
a preface and a postscript from the vigorous pen of the celebra- 
ted Dr. Johnson. Dr. Symmons, in his Lite of Milton, states 
it as probable from Johnson's known connexion with Cave, the 
editor of the Gentleman's Magazbe, that he was intimately con* 
ceroed in Lauder's former essay ; but this is by no means satis- 
factorily evinced. 

In the article and the volume of which we have spoken. Mil-* 
ton was accused of having derived many of his images and 
thoughts, and even many of his forms of expression, from Gro- 
tius, and several other modern writers, of little note in our day, 
whatever was theu* reputation in their own. The chief writers 
designated by Lauder, besides Grotius, were Masenius, a Jesuit, 
Taubmann, a German professor, and Staphorstius, a Dutch di- 
vine. To support his charge, he adduced passages, as from 
these writers, which did indeed bear a wonderful, a more than 
accidental, resemblance to passages pointed out in Milton's 
Paradise Lost, and were sometimes completely identical with 
them, except diat in the one case the passages were in Latin 
and in the other in Ejiglish. On the strength of this corres- 

Kodence, Lauder allowed himself the most unlimited abuse of 
ilton, terming him ^^ an unlicensed plagiary," accusing him of 
*^ an industrious concealment of his helps," of conduct " highly 
ungenerous," " absolutely unworthy of any man of probity and 
honor," "criminal to the last degree." " Mankind," says he, 
" by giving too implicit a faith to the bold assertion of our poet, that 
be sung things unattempied yet, have been deluded into a false 
opinion of Milton's being more an original author than any poet 
ever was before him. This opinion, and this only, has been the 
cause of that infinite tribute of veneration that has been paid 
bim these sixty years past. Hence so many editions, transla- 
tions, commentaries, lives, encomiums, marble busts, pictures, 
gold and silver medals." He attributed the well-known circum- 
stance, that Milton would not teach his daughters to understand 
tlie languages which they were in the habit of reading to him, 
to his fear that they would recognize his plagiarisms. In con- 
clusion of his treatise he made a solemn assertion of the purity 
of his motives and an apology for the severity of bis remarks. 
The volume was inscribed to the Universities of Oxford add 
Cambridge. 



1888.] Literary lmpaiture$* 53 

• 

The Acts which Lauder alleged weie not disputedin print 
for a great while after their puUication. Nor is this strange ; 
lor who could imagine that his book was an unmingled tissue of 
imposture. The very impudence of his enterprise protected 
him. Hb triumph was undisturbed for nearly a year. At the 
end of that perioc!, howerer, the fine fiibric he had constructed was 
dissipated to the winds, and he was degraded from the patronage 
and society of the great to his proper estimation ; he became a 
thing at which general indignation and contempt were directed. 
In 1751, Dr. Douglas published a letter to the Earl of Bath, en- 
titled " Mihon vindicated from the Charge of Plagiarism,'' which, 
in a temperate but mercilessly thorough manner exposed the 
vile arts of Lauder, and rescued Milton's towering fame from 
bis malicious assault. 

The lines of Milton himself in the very poem so ranoorously 
vilified, which describe the efiisct produced by the touch of 
Itburiel's spear upon the visible form of Satan, as he sat ^^ squat, 
like a toad, close at the ear of Eve," will not perhaps be regard- 
ed as entirely inapposite. Lauder was, we know, 

^ Blown up with high conceits, eagenderiog pride. 
Him thus intent Ithuriei with iiis spear 
Touched lightly ; for no falsehood can endure 
Touch of celestial temper, but returns, 
Of force, to its own likeness. Up he starts, 
Discovered and surprised. As, when a spark 
Lights on a heap of nitrous powder, laid 
Fit for the tun, some magazine to store 
Against a rumored war» the smutty grain, 
With sudden blaze dijSiised, inflames the air ; 
8o started up in his own shape the fiend." 

Dr. Douglas was then rector of Eton Constantine in Shrop- 
shire, England. This letter was his first literary production. 
He (Ued in 1807, bishop of Salisbury. When Lauder's book 
first came into bis hands, and for a considerable time after 
its perusal, he, like others, did not once imagine it possible that 
the works referred to by Lauder wanted the passages ostensi- 
Uy quoted from them ; although he considered the deductions 
firom the premises as unwarrantably harsh, and was ready 
to maintain, as he does in the first part of the letter which dis- 
closed Lauder's firaud, that, even admitting all the premises, no 
could be drawn to Milton's discredit. In this idea be 



54 Literary lnfpo$turei. [Jan. 

was undoubtedly misled by his veneratioii for the great poet ; 
for nothing could be said in censure of any plagiarisms whatso- 
ever, if we allow the character of innocence to those which M3- 
ton must have committed, bad Lauder been veracious in his 
quotadons. 

In the summer of 1750, Dr. D. went to reside for a while at 
the University of Oxford. Curiosity, along with the unusual 
facility of gratifying it which his situation afforded, induced him 
to make search for the books to which Lauder referred. Many 
of them were so rare as not to be procurable even at Oxford. 
The two to which Lauder had made most frequent reference, 
that of Masenius and the Adamus Exstd of Grotius were not 
to be found. Those which he did obtain, however, revealed 
the imposition, probably unparalleled in point of hardihood, 
which Milton's detractor had practised upon the world. The 
first circumstance, which forcibly attracted Dr. D.'s attention, 
was that in every case Lauder omitted telling his readers in 
what part of the woric to which reference was made the pre- 
tended quotation was to be found. This laid him under the 
necessity of tumbg over an entire volume page by page in 
order to find the lines alleged to be a citation. 

Dr. Douglas's examination resulted in the disclosure that, of 
the lines adduced, those which bore any special resemblance to 
Milton's were invariably wantbg in the original, and were there- 
fore interpolated by Lauder. Dr. D. did not even leave Lau- 
der the merit of havmg himself composed all the Latin verses 
that he had foisted into the productions which he pretended to 
quote with fairness. ''The lines are good CHies," says he, 
^' and therefore let us give the honor of them to their real au- 
thor." He discovered that nearly all of them were derived 
from a Latin translation of the Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, 
and Samson Agonistes, executed by William Hogg, or Hogsus, 
as he calls himself on the title-page, and printed at London in 
1690. Thus Milton was branded and reviled as a plagiary for 
having itolenfram himself! " It seems so extremely improb- 
able," says Dr. Douglas, " that any one should ever venture to 
put so gross an imposition on the world, that I almost despair 
of being believed, although I know the certainty of the fact." 

Dr. Douglas also points out in Lauder's assertions many in- 
consistencies and extreme absurdities, such as always accom- 
Sany very complicated deception. For example, he charged 
[ilton with stealing the comparison of Eve to Pandora, in 



1888.] Literary hupottuxu. S5 

Bode IV. of Par. Lost, from both Masenius and Malapertius; 
baving undoubtedly forgotten, wben he ascribed its origin to 
the latter, that he had already ascribed it to the former. In 
one part of bis book he said, that the 11th and 12th Books of 
the Par. Lost were a copy of Rosse's VirgiUus Ehangelizans ; 
in another Du Bartas shares the honor of being their original ; 
and in another still, Barlaeus is said to have furnished ** the 
prima stamina of the best part of the last two books of Para- 
dise Lost." 

The most amazing instance of effiontery in the whole tissue 
of his firauds is yet to be noticed. In lus ISrst essay, in the 
Gentlemen's Magazine of Feb. 1747, he actually forged apas- 
satrefor Milton himself, and then asseited that it was an imita-» 
tion of two lines which be adduced from Grotius and which are 
truly cited ! Such impudence is astounding ! The passage 
forged was as follows : 

" And lakes of living sulphur ever flow. 
And ample epaces." 

When Dr. Douglas's Letter appeared, Lauder's booksellers 
at once told him, much to their honor, that he must either dis- 
prove the charges it contained, or they should publicly disclaim 
all further connexion with him. H!e unblushingly owned his 
fraud, and they circulated an advertisement declaring that before 
the publicatbn of the exposure they had no knowledge of his 
dishonesty, and excusing themselves by saying, that the man's 
apparent incapacity to contrive such a scheme of deception had 
precluded suspicion. 

Dr. Johnson wrote for Lauder a letter of contrition to Dr. 
Douglas, and forced its publication. It is said that this letter, 
which runs tn a- strain at extreme humility, by no means ex- 
pressed the real feelings of Lauder at the time. At any rate, 
be subsequently retracted it ; and, three or four years later, 
published an additional pamphlet against Milton of the most 
malignant character. It produced no effect in his favor. He 
retired to Barbadoes in the West Indies, and died, about the 
year 1771, in merited poverty and obscurity. 

The interest excited in the public mind by this imposture 
and its detection is well described by the celebrated bishop 
Warburton in a letter which we find in one of the volumes of 
Nichols's Literary Anecdotes. ^' Lauder has afforded much 
amusement for the public, and they are obliged to him. What 



5S Literary bipa$iure$. [Jam. 

the public wants, or subsists on, is news, Milton was their 
reigning favorite ; yet they took it well of a man they bad never 
heard of before, to tell them the news of Milton being a thief 
and a plagiary. When this was no longer news, they were 
equally delighted with another, as much a stranger to them, 
who entertained them with anotiier piece of news, that Lauder 
was a plagiary and impostoTk^' 

It should be noticed, that although Dr. D. first disclosed in 
print the facts relative to this imposition, the merit of the ^rt^ 
discovery^ as Dr. D. himself ingenuously states in his Letter, 
belongs to another, a Mr. Bowie of Oriel College, Oxford, who 
generously communicated to the former considerable aid in un- 
masking Milton's detractor. 

The motives which led Lauder (how inappropriate a nanoe ! 
lucus A nan Iwendoy) to the perpetration of this bold fraud have 
never been ascertained ; or at least, if they have, they were 
exceedingly disproportionate to the danger and infamy of expo- 
sure. In the penitential letter to Dr. Douglas, he (or rather 
Dr. Johnson for him) assigns so puerile a reason for his conduct, 
that, it would seem, no considerate mmd could for a moment 
suppose it the real one. In Nichols's Illustrations of the Lite- 
rature of the Eighteenth Century there is a private letter of Lau- 
der's to Dr. Mead, dated April 9th, 1751, in which he gives 
another and equally puerile account of the cause of his pro- 
cedure, alleging a desire to retaliate on Milton for having 
attempted, as Milton's enemies have often asserted on no just 
grounds, to deprive Charles I. of the reputed authorship of the 
work called Eikon Badlike. The fictitious story to which 
Lauder referred is, that Milton stole a prayer from Sir Philip 
Sidney's Arcadia, and, by means of " severe penalties and 
threatenings," compelled the printer of the Eikon BanUke to 
subjoin it to his miyesty's production ; intending to make the 
world believe that, as his majesty was not the author of that 
prayer, he was not the author of any portion of the book. 
'^ Fallere fallentem non est fraus," was Lauder's attempt at ex- 
culpation. 

Dr. Johnson's connection with Lauder has been much harped 
upon by the enemies of that great man ; and some of the facts 
in relation to it wear, it must be confessed, rather an undeara- 
ble aspect. Probably, however, he is not justly chargeable 
with anything more seriously derogatory than too great readi- 
ness to believe Lauder's assertions. Tins sprang fton his well- 



18S8,] IMerofy tnpoHwres. 5T 

known distftste for MHton's politics, which has imparted undue 
severity to the criticisms on Milton's poetry which he presented 
to the readers of the Rambler, and led him to unfair estimation 
of Milton's character generally. As to the assertion of Sir 
John Hawkins in his memoirs of Dr. Johnson, that, while the 
sheets of Lauder's Essay were passing through the press, 
*^ Johnson seemed to exult in the persuasion that the reputation 
of Milton was likely to suffer by this discovery," although it 
has been pronounced by some a base calumny, we do not hesi- 
tate to admit the probability of its correctness ; for, with all 
Johnson's greatness of mind, he bad a very remarkable degree 
of human frailty. 

The poems of Ossian, presented to the world by Macpherson, 
are very generally regarded as an imposture. Chatterton's for> 
geries, also, have attracted great notice. Much mystery still 
adheres to them. D'Israeli declares that in his opinion the tale 
has been but half told. We refer thus cursorily to the supposed 
frauds of Macpherscxi and Chatterton because they were not 
long smce discussed by the writer of an article in the North 
American Review, entitled " British Poetry during the latter 
part of the last century." If this Reviewer has erred at all, it 
is probaUy in respect to the extent of Macpherson's deception, 
and the error is far from being on the side of lenity. We are 
disposed to think that the so-called poems of Ossian are, for 
the most part at least, based upon poetical legends actually 
current in the highlands of Scotiand, many of which were gen* 
uine productions of a bard named Ossian. 

William Henry Ireland rendered himself notorious by attempt- 
ing frauds upon the public in relation to the writings of Shak- 
speare. After disseminating several minor imitations, he became 
90 completely demented as to endeavor to palm off an entire 
drama of his own composition as the production of the prince 
of English poets. A volume of the pretended relics appeared 
in 17S6. We have not space to speak particularly of them. 
Suffice it to introduce some lines inscribed by the Rev. William 
Mason (author of The English Garden, Elfrida, and other 
poems) below a portrait of William Henry Ireland. The other 
forgers referred to in them are Lauder, Macpherscm, and Chat- 
terton. 

'^Foar forgers bom in one prolific age, 
Much critical acumen did engage ; 
The first was soon by doughty Douglas scared, 
Vol. XI. No. 29. 8 



56 Literary hnpoitures. [Jan. 

Though Johnaon would have screened binii bad he dared ; 

The next had all the cunning of a Scot ; 
The third invention, genius, nay, what not ? 
Fraud, now exhausted, only could dispense 
To his fourth son their three fold impudence."* 

. Many playful literary impositions have been practised upon the 
public and upon individuals, which are commonly set down as 
mere jeux d'esprit^ deservbg slight, if any, reprehension. A 
strict moralist, however, can hardly pronounce them innocent. 
George Steevens,tbe commentator on Shakspeare, practised in 
the course of his very eccentric life, a great many impositions 
upon the credulity of antiquaries and weak-minded persons of 
all classes. They were, most of them at least, prompted rather 
by humor than by any malignant design. The &mous story 
uespecting the Upas tree of Java, ^^ the effluvia of which, through 
a district of twelve or fourteen miles, had Idlled all vegetation, 
and had spread the skeletons of men and animak, affi>rding a 
scene of melancholy beyond what poets have described or 
painters delineated," is said to owe its origin to Steevens. He 

fublished it in the London Magazine as an extract from a 
>utch traveller, in whose work, however, no one could ever 
discover it. The many fictions of this nature which appeared 
in the London papers during the literary career of Steevens are 
ascribed by many almost en masse to Steevens, from the fact 
tbat several have been satisfactorily traced to his pen. 

The younger Scaliger was, as was his father likewise, of an 
arrogant disposition, and plumed himself much on his supposed 
infallibility of judgment concerning matters of ancient literature. 
Muretus, with a mischievous intent to expose him to ridicule, 
sent him some verses purporting to have been copied from an 
old MS. Scaliger was entrapped, and affirmed at once that 
they were written by an old comic author named Trabeus. 
He cited them as precious relics of antiquity in a commentary 
on Varro's work De Re Rustica. Muretus thereupon disclosed 
the deception, and Scaliger was deservedly humbled. 

Horace Walpole, being at Paris in 1765, wrote a letter to 
Rousseau in French, purporting to come from Frederic, king of 
Prussia, which produced the effect anticipated by its author* 
The extravagant conduct of Rousseau, upon an occurrence 

* The writer of theae lines evidently had in mind Diyden's Epi- 
gram on Milton. 



1838.] IMerary bnposturu. 09 

which keenly probed his singular vanity and self-consequence, 
afforded much amusement. Waipole, be it remembered, was 
the very man who spumed the unhappy Chatterton, upon dis- 
covering that the poems, which he published in the name of 
Rowley and other ancient writers, were written by himself. 

If there was ever an innocent literary deception it was that 
of Mr. Burke in regard to his " Vindication of Natural Society,'* 
which bore on its title page the words : By a late noble Writer," 
meanmg Lord Bolingbroke. So completely did he attain the 
intended similarity in thought and expression, that many of 
great sagacity admitted without hesitation the genuineness of 
the work, and some even praised it above Lord Bolingbroke's 
best performances. The production was ironical ; it was de- 
signed to show thatf on the same principles of reasoning which 
had been followed by the ^^ noble writer" in the maintenance 
of his skepticism concerning Christianity, the expediency of 
political society might be disputed likewise. During the 
French Revolution, this same ironical composition of Burke's 
younger days was republished in England, as a piece of serious 
argument, by some of the admirers df those principles of anar- 
chy under the venomous influence of which the French nation 
was then writhing in political convulsions. 

The third general division of our subject relates to those who 
have published intentional untruth, as to the matters of fact 
which they state in their productions. We have already, how- 
ever, extended our remarks to such a length as to preclude an 
examination of any of these frauds. In number and singularity 
they equal those which we have before noticed. That very 
extraordinary individual, George Psalmanazar, leads the host 
which enfilades before our mind's eye in view of this part of 
the subject of Literary Impostures. His autobiography is, we 
think, extremely entertaining, although D'Israeli pronounces it 
tedious. 

A work on the literary impositions which have been perpe- 
trated upon the public, besides being replete with interest^ 
would be productive of considerable other advantage. It would 
furnish an important subject of study m the great science of 
human nature ; exhibiting peculiar, cultivated specimens of 
criminality. 



fiO AivancemetU <ff BibUcal Knowledge. [Jan. 



ARTICLE IV. 
Tas Advanceiisnt of Biblical Knowledge.* 

By B. P. Bftrrowi, Profenor of Biblical Liter&Urt Id the Waitorn KettrTe Colleg •. 

" All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, ftnd is profit- 
able for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instroction in 
righteousness ; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly 
furnished unto all good works." These are the words of an 
aged apostle, addressed to a youthful minister of Christ. The 
general truth which they assert is, that the holy Scriptures, 
given by inspiration of God, constitute a perfect rule for the 
direction of the christian teacher in all circumstances ; and that 
his perfection as a teacher consists in a perfect understanding of 
their principles, doctrines, and precepts. From the rich treasury 
of GoA's word, he is to fumisn himself with sound doctrine for 
the illumination of the minds of those over whom the Holy 
Spirit has made him overseer ; fix>m its bright and glorious 
principles, he is to convince men of sin, and put to silence gain- 
savers ; from its precepts, he is to reclaim offenders, rectify 
what is amiss in the church, and train up her members to holi- 
ness and usefulness. If the Scriptures of the Old Testament 
merited the high eulogium of the apostle, how much more the 
sacred canon as we now possess it, complete in all its parts, 
containing not only the writings of " Moses and the prophets," 
bat also the words of Christ and his apostles ! Of this it may 
be said with emphasis, that the man of God who fully under- 
stands the truths which it embodies, and how to apply these 
truths skilfully to the wants of his people, is " perfect, thor- 
oughly fiimished unto all good works" pertaining to hb office. 

The grand business, therefore, of every one who aspires to the 
^ork of the christian ministry, is to learn vfhat truths the 
Scriptures contain, and how to apply these truths to the under- 
standings and consciences of men. The former is accomplished 
by study ; the latter, mainly by practice. Both are Indispen- 
sably necessary to constitute an efficient minister of the gospel ; 
^* a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing 
the word of truth." The present occasion, however, leads us 

* This article was delivered by the author as an Inaugural Ad- 
dress* EiO. 



leae.] Advtmement of Biblkal SmuiMg^ 61 

to eooflder more particularly that branch of mii^sierial qualifi* 
catko which oomists in a tbotoagh acquaiatance . with God's 
word. 

In pursuing this subject we sbaU inquire, first : What is in*- 
volyed m a thorough knowledge of Scripture ? and, secondly : 
How can this knowledge be most e£bctually diffused through* 
out the christian ministry ? 

L What does a thorough knowledge of Scripture involve ? 

1. It involves a thorough acquaintance with the original lan- 
guages of the sacred volume. This proposition, few, if any, 
will be inclined to dispute. We have a most excellent traosla* 
tioo of the Scriptures into our vernacular tongue. For this in- 
estimable boon we Uess the God of our fathers. The sound 
learning and judgment of its authors, their freedom from a sec^ 
tariao spirit, their scriipufeus fidelity, and the majestic simplicity 
of their style are worthy of all praise. This translation we 
have ever been ready to defend against the cavils and mueodoes 
of superficial smatterers in sacred literature, and have felt that 
those sects, or firagments of sects, who find it in the way of 
their fiivorite dogmas, have a bad cause to maintain. Still, it 
is but a translation^ and no translatioQ, however perfect, can 
fiiUy express all the ddicate shades of meaning and connections 
of thought that belong to the ori^al. Moreover, since its ex- 
ecution, biblical science has enjoyed the advantage of moite 
than two centuries of investigation and researdi, in the progress 
of which much additional light has been elicited. In some few 
cases (not involving any fundamental doctrine or precept) it is 
generally admitted that the translators have erred ; in more 
still, the sense which they have expressed is one of two or 
QKMre, ^ther of which may be the true meaning of the original. 
Their '< various readmgs" show that they themselves often hes- 
itated as to the manner in whksh a particular word or phrase 
should be rendered. With all due deference, therefore, to 
these venerable men, we maintain that it is the duty of the man 
of God, to consult the origlhal oracles of divine truth, and to 
judge for himself of their meaning. Tins was the doctrine of 
our pilgrim ancestors ; it has ever been the doctrine of their 
descendants to the present day ; and we mean to band it down 
in its purity to our posterity. 

2. A thorough knowledge of Scripture involves an acquaint- 
ance with the geography, and antiquities of aooieot Palestine, 
and of the sunounding nalioaa with whose history that of the 



63 Advaneemeni of Biblical Knowledge. [Jan* 

children of Israel is connected. The eager demand for this 
species of knowledge among the conductors of Sabbath schools, 
Bible classes, and others who desire to qualify themselves for 
the work of expounding the word of God to the rising genera- 
tion, (a demand which has called forth some of the noblest in- 
tellectual efforts of the age,) is a commentary on its value which 
all can read and understand. Without the light which it affords, 
no one can clearly apprehend the force of the numerous allu- 
sions to the location and relative position of the cities and civil 
divisions of Palestine, and of the surrounding nations ; to their 
natural scenery, climate, and productions ; and to the manners 
and customs of society ; which crowd almost every page of in- 
spiration. Who, for example, can intelligently read the narra- 
tive of the apostle Paul's joumies and labors, without an ac- 
quaintance with the natural and civil geography of the regions 
over which he traveUed ? Who, that does not understand the 
posture in which the ancients were accustomed to take their 
meals, can comprehend how " a certain woman" could stand at 
our Saviour's feet " behind him^^^ while he was " at meat in 
the Pharisee's house," could wash his feet with her tears, wipe 
them with the hairs of her head, kiss them, and anoint them 
with ointment ? Who can fully understand the parable of the 
ten virgins without a knowledge of oriental nuptial ceremonies ? 
The above are a few obvious examples, selected from among 
many hundreds equally striking. Nor must the biblical student 
limit himself to the geography and antiquities of the Jews. In 
the course of their eventful history, the people of God were 
brought into contact with all the great monarchies of the ancient 
world, and fix>m the geography and antiquities of all these are 
illustrations of Scripture to be sought. In the New Testament, 
more especially, Jewish, Grecian, and Roman geography and 
archaeology are all blended together, and are all indispensable 
to a full elucidation of the sacred page. 

3. A thorough knowledge of Scripture involves an enlarged 
acquaintance with ancient history. We have remarked above 
that (jod in his providence brought his ancient people succes- 
sively into contact with all the great monarchies of the earth. 
Let It be remembered that this was not for a day, or a month, 
or a year, but for long periods of time ; not when these mon- 
archies were in their infancy, but when they were in their 
prime of glory and strength. It seems ever to have been Jeho- 
vah's plan to place his chosen people in the very heart of the 



1888.] Aioaneemeni of Biblical Knowledge. 63 

civiliaed world, a conspicuous object of attention to all the sur- 
rounding nations. To the north and east, they had the great 
Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires ; to the south, 
Egypt ; to the west, Greece and Rome. Thus, while God 
kept them constantly surrounded by the instruments of his 
pleasure, he made them, in turn, a spectacle to the world, 
whether in victory or defeat, whether exalted by his favor above 
their enemies, or sunk by his frown beneath their iron yoke. 
Hence the history of ancient Israel becomes the leading element 
in the hbtory of mankind before the Messiah's advent, even as 
the history of the christian church is the leading element since 
that era. Take away this element from the annals of antiqui- 
ty, and they are left, like the primeval chaos, " without form 
and void, and darkness is upon the face of the deep." Restore 
it, and all beocxnes order, harmony, and unity of design. We 
see one empire springing into exbtence at the fiat of Jehovah, 
that it may be the instrument in his hand of accomplishing 
some deep and glorious purpose respecting his church, and 
then sinking into its original nothing, to make room for another, 
destined, in-like manner, to subserve the interests of Zion. It 
is no exaggeration to say that the record of God's dealings with 
his church is the key to the universal history of mankind ; and 
that her destmies are the hinge upon which the destinies of all 
nations have ever turned. Viewed in this light, how important 
does prdane history become ! Isolated from sacred history, it 
is but a barren and disgusting detail of human passions and 
crimes ; but studied in connection with it, every page is lumi^ 
nous with instruction. What is it but a part and parcel of 
(rod's stupendous plan of subjecting all nations to the reign of 
the Messiah 7 

Profane history, moreover, is the Jcey of prophecy. How 
many predictions were uttered by the ancient prophets whose 
iiilfilment is nowhere recorded in the Bible ! Many of these 
related to periods prior to the advent of Christ ; others have 
been accomplished since that day ; others, again, are yet future ; 
but the interpretation of all is to be sought firom the page of 
uninspired Ustory. 

4. A thorough knowledge of Scripture involves an acquaint- 
ance with the internal history of the ancient worid, that is, with 
its moral, religious, and political condition. The Mosaic econ- 
omy was designed to be mtroductory to a nobler dispensation. 
Its perfection (the Holy Ghost being judge) was not ab$ohUe, 



64 Advancemeni of BihKcal KiawUdge* [Jan* 

like the perfection of the Gospel, but rtlaiive, as a means to 
secure a further end, having reference to the existing ciicuni* 
stances of mankind. Whoever, therefore, would judge correct- 
ly of its provisions, must understand both the final end which 
it proposed to accomplish, the mecms which it selected for secur* 
ing this end, and the adaptation of these means to the condi- 
tion of the world. Many captious objections, for example, 
which have been urged against the policy which it prescribed 
with reference to the surrounding idolatrous nations, might have 
been spared, had their authors well understood the bearing of 
this policy upon the great end of this dispensation, which was 
to establish upon an immovable basis the doctrine of Jehovah's 
unity and infinite perfections, in opposition to the polytheism 
and image-worship that then prevailed throughout the world, 
that thus the way might be prepared for the mtroduction oS the 
christian dispensation. The same remarks are, to a great extent, 
applicable to the New Testament. Without an acquaintance 
with the moral, religious, and political condition of the worid at 
the period of our Seiviour's advent, we cannot fully enter into 
the meaning of many passages which occur in the writings of the 
evangelists and apostles. For want of this knowledge, many a 
sincere inquirer after truth has felt himself greatly ^nbanassed 
and perplexed in the commencement of his investigations. But, 
as his acquaintance with the internal history of the ancient world 
has gradually increased, his difficulties one after another have 
vanished ; light has succeeded to darkness, and order to con- 
fusion. 

5. A thorough knowledge oi Scripture involves an acquaiBt- 
ance with the laws of human language. For the BiUe, though 
containing a revelation from God, is expressed in the ordinary 
language of common life, and is to be interpreted accordingly. 

Whatever advantages we may imagine that we can secure to 
the cause of truth (or what we esteem the cause of truth) by 
deviating bota the well established principles of interpretation 
which are employed in ascertaining the meaning of all other writ- 
ten documents, we shall find to our cost that, like the apocalyptic 
book, they are only sweet at the first taste. For one argument 
on the side of truth which can be thus wrested from Scripture, 
ten can, by the same method, be gained m behalf of eiror. 
How many forced ccMostructions of dbe most simple passages of 
God's word would a rigid adherence to the laws of ioierpre- 
tioo have prevented ! — and how much angry logomachy! 



1888.] Adtimceiaufnt of Biblical KMwhige. 65 

6* A thorough knowledge of Scripture involves an acquaint- 
ance with the constitution of roan considered as an intellectual 
and moral being. The word of God addresses itself to the 
whole complex nature of man, his understanding, his natural 
and moral susceptibilities, his powers of free agency. The 
more thoroughly, therefore, the minister of the gospel under- 
stands human nature, in the most enlarged sense of the term, 
the more clearly will he apprehend the great principles of rev- 
elation, which all address themselves to human nature ; and the 
more skilfully will he be enabled to apply these principles in the 
interpretation of the inspired volume. There is a philosophy, 
" falsely so called," which " leads to bewilder, and dazzles to 
blind ; " but true philosophy will always be found in perfect 
harmony with divine' truth, for the book of the human mind, 
and the book of revelation, are both from God, and the one can- 
not contradict the other. We do not advocate the introduction 
of metaphysical subtleties into the pulpit. This is not their 
place. But we would have the man of God, when he enters 
the pulpit, understand the intellectual and moral constitution 
of the immortal minds upon which he is to operate. The more 
of this substantial philosophy he possesses, the better. 

If, in the above attempt to show what is involved in a 
thorough knowledge of Scripture, we have not confined our- 
selves exclusively to the field of sacred literature, we hope we 
shall be pardoned for the digression. We wished to lay a foun- 
dation broad enough for the superstructure which we intend pre- 
sently to rear upon it, and, in doing this, we could not well con- 
fine ourselves within the limits of any one branch of theologi- 
cal knowledge. 

We cannot dismiss this part of our subject without adding 
that a right state of heart is indispensable to the successful study 
of Scripture. The Bible is not an abstract code of laws that 
can be examined with cool indifference, as one studies the laws 
of a foreign nation ; nor is it a mere record of human transactions, 
like the histories of Greece and Rome. It is a code of laws 
indeed, but one which lays its broad claims upon the conscience 
of each individual who reads it, demanding of him instant and 
unreserved obedience : it is a history, but a history of God's 
proceedings with this apostate world, in which he has clearly 
developed the principles upon which he will deal with us 
through time and through eternity. It opposes itself directly to 
human pride and selfishness in every possible form ; requiring 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 9 



66 Advancement of Biblical Knowledge^ [Jait, 

all to acknowledge their guilt and desert of eternal death, to 
submit themselves unreservedly to the authority of Christ, and 
to transfer their afiections from earth to heaven. Is it not self- 
evident that the man who comes to the study of such a book, 
with a heart under the dominion of pride and earthly affections, 
will be constantly liable to err through the influence of passioo 
and prejudice ? How can he candidly examine and judge of a 
, system of truth that comes mto perpetual conflict with his daily 
habits and feelings ? Men's hearts govern their heads, not their 
heads their hearts, as we may. see every day illustrated in all the 
transactions of life. It was in view of this all-important truth 
that our Saviour uttered these memorable words, <^ If any man 
will do his," (God's) " will, he shall know of the doctrme," 
(which I preach) ^^ whether it be of God, or whether I speak 
of myself. We find from experience that an obedient, humble, 
an4 devout state of mind, is an indispensable prepajratioo for 
the successful investigation of truth. Let him who aspires to the 
office of the christian ministry bring to the study of the sacred ora- 
cles such a preparation ; let him superadd all the subsidiary aids 
above enumerated ; then, let him study the system of truth contaio- 
ed in the Holy Scriptures as one harmonious whole, endeavoring 
to see and understand the mutual connection and dependence of 
all its parts. Thus may he become " a workman that needeth 
not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.'' 

11. We come now to inquire, how a thorough knowledge of 
the holy Scriptures can be most effectuaUy diffiised throughout 
the ministry. 

To this inquiry we reply, it is necessary, in the first place, that 
we should have some men in the church who shall press every 
department of biblical and theological learning to its utmost 
limits ; and, in tlie second place, that the great body of the 
christian ministry should receive such an education as will ena« 
ble them to avail themselves of the results of these investiga- 
tions. This proposition divides itself into two parts, each of 
which will be separately considered. 

1. We must have some men in the church who shall press 
every department of biblical and theological learning to its utmost 
limits. In no other way has any department of human know- 
ledge ever been carried to a high degree of perfection^ The 
splendid discoveries in the natural sciences which have so greatly 
flplarged the dominion of mind over matter, have, with scarce 
an exception, been made by men who were determined to 



1838.] AdvancMient of Biblical Knowledge. 67 

know all that could be known of that department of nature 
which they had selected as their field of investigation. The 
same remark holds true with respect to philology, history, 
geography, and archaeology in all its diversified forms. It is 
only narrow-minded ignorance that inquires, ^' Of what use is 
all this waste of precious time, of strength, and of intellect ? this 
plunging into the arcana of nature ? this squandering of years 
in poring over the musty records of antiquity ? When there is 
80 much to be done in the world, why not devote ourselves to 
pursuits of practical utility ?'' Aye, but how are we to ascer- 
tain beforehand the practical utility of knowledge ? Did those 
who first began to inquire into the nature of steam know that 
their inquiries were to result in the production of the steam- 
engine ? Some century and a half ago it might have been 
thought a very idle and unprofitable employment for a philoso- 
pher gravely to watch the effects of steam upon^ the lid of a 
tea-kettle, and to institute a series of laborious experiments for 
the purpose of ascertaining its properties. His neighbors might 
very naturally have rebuked him for wasting so much precious 
time in an investigation which could not possibly be of any ad- 
vantage to the world ; and that too at a period when the im- 
provement of navigation, internal communication, and the me- 
chanical arts presented such a wide field of profitable labor. 
But now, taught by experience, we have learned the folly of 
attempting to decide beforehand the practical value of know- 
ledge. Were further illustrations needed, the history of modem 
science and literature would furnish them in great 'abundance. 
Nor is the history of biblical literature since the reformation 
less replete with instruction on this point. As its several de- 
partments have been, from time to time, advanced beyond their 
previous limits, new and unexpected light has been shed upon 
one portion afler another of the sacred volume. Its great fun- 
damental doctrines, written as with a sunbeam upon every page 
in characters so legible that " he who runs may read," have 
remained " without variableness or shadow of turning." But, 
while the doctrines themselves have continued immutable from 
generation to generation, many important illustrations of these 
doctrines, that needed the light of philology, or history, or geog- 
raphy, or archaeology, or which were involved in the mists of 
&lse philosophy and erroneous principles of interpretation, have 
been freed firom the obscurity that rested upon them, and made 
to shine forth in the simplicity and beauty of truth, not indeed 



68 Adoancement of Biblical KntowUdgt. [Jak. 

establishing, but still greatly adoniiDgy the fundamental doo 
trines of revelation. Even firom those investigations that have 
been undertaken and prosecuted without immediate reference 
to divine truth, what unexpected light has sometimes been 
thrown upon some obscure passage, or some controverted point 
of scriptural history ! Of this the labors of the ChampoUions 
and their co-adjutors are an illustrious instance. 

We trust enough has been said to show the importance of 
pushing every department of biblical knowledge to its utmost 
limits. But by whom shall this work be performed ? We 
answer, individuals must devote themselves to its several de- 
partments, according as their education, their native turn of 
mmd, their station, and their means shall direct. It cannot be 
performed by the mass of the christian ministry, for they have 
not the requisite time and apparatus. Whoever hopes mate- 
rially to enlarge the boundaries of any one of its branches, will 
need to devote to it many years of patient and laborious inves- 
tigation. Take, for example, the department of Hebrew lexi- 
cography. The Hebrew has been for twenty-three centuries a 
dead language. In its words, in its grammatical inflections, 
and in its idioms it differs widely from the languages of Europe, 
ancient or modem. Moreover all the monuments of this lan- 
guage are comprised within the compass of one volume. Many 
words occur but once or twice, and then, oftentimes, in con- 
nections that throw little or no light upon their signification. 
The lexicographer who would contribute any thing valuable to 
this important department, must first carefully examine and col- 
late the sacred text ; then, in difficult passages, he must con- 
sult the ancient versions and paraphrases ; where these fail to 
give satisfactory results, he must resort to a comparison of the 
cognate dialects, as the Aramaean, Arabic, and Ethiopic. How 
many years of study and research will th'is employment con- 
sume ! So the departments of ancient history, archaeology, 
etc., present immense fields of investigation, enough and more 
than "^ough to exhaust the energies of the man who aims at 
their v^rmanent advancement. But though the prime of his 
strength be thus concentrated to a single point, let it not be 
supposed that it is either wasted or unprofitably spent. Those 
who are accustomed to estimate men's labors only by their im- 
mediate visible results, may speak lightly of him as a mere 
book- worm, a recluse that is of no service to mankind ; but 
the lovers of sacred learning will better appreciate his toib, and 



1638.] Advancem/mt of Biblical EiwulUdge. 69 

he mnll have the satisfaction of knowing that while he has la- 
boredy other men will enter into his labors. There is no dan- 
ger at the present day that any valuable discovery in sacred 
fiterature wiU be lost. Once registered on the printed page, it 
will become an advanced position from which others will push 
forward their investigations to a still further limit ; and their 
labors will become in turn the basis of future discoveries. 
Thus, each generation availing itself of the labors of its prede- 
cessors, and urging forward every department of sacred learn- 
ing to its extreme limits, the most glorious results to the cause 
of truth, may be confidently anticipated. 

2. The great body of the christian ministry must receive 
such an education as shall enable them to avail themselves of 
the results of the investigations of others. We shall here ex- 
clude the previous mental discipline which the academical 
course of study is designed to furnish, and speak only of that 
education which is strictly theological. With this limitation we 
would say that the education of which we speak must include 
a thorough introduction to the several departments of biblical 
and theological knowledge. This introduction will embrace an 
acctirate acquaintance with the elementary principles, the modes 
of investigation, the sources of knowledge, and the means of 
deciding controverted points, that pertain to each. To these 
may be added more or less of its details, according as its na- 
ture, or the circumstances of the student may dictate. For an 
illustration of this position take the department of ancient his- 
tory. Whoever would reap the benefit of the elaborate inves- 
tigations of those who have devoted their lives to the study of 
this subject, must make himself familiar with all its great out- 
lines, — the order and succession of the different monarchies 
with which the history of the Israelitish nation is connected, 
their relative position and political connections, and especially 
with the synchronisms of sacred and profane history ; with the 
sources of ancient history, and the principles upon which their 
comparative authority is to be determbed ; and, finally, with 
various methods which learned men have proposed for reconcil- 
ing contradictions either in chronology or in matters of fact. 
Then he will be prepared to av^ himself of all the light which 
may fix>m time to time be shed upon this department by the 
toils of others. Otherwise, his views will be so chaotic and 
confused that he can neither prosecute it himself to advantage 



70 Advancement ofBUblied BmuIUJ^. {Jak. 

(unless indeed he is willing to commence anew) nor intelli- 
gently judge of the results of other men's labors. 

For another illustration, take the department of language. 
The man who has made himself accurately acquainted with the 
original languages of Scripture is prepared mtelligently to ex- 
amine and judge of the results of the investigations of those 
who have devoted their lives to the subject. Otherwise these 
results can be of no service to him, except so far as he is willing 
to take the ipse dixit of the translator or commentator for truth. 
For the want of three years' training in the original languages of 
Scripture, he loses the fruit of thirty years of incessant toil and 
research ; nay more, of the accumulated results of ages of in- 
vestigation. Can any thing short of imperative necessity be 
admitted as an excuse for such negligence ? Shall the candi- 
date for the christian ministry be in such haste to do good that be 
cannot take time to qualify himself for the work ? This looks 
to us very much like an army's leaving their artillery behind 
because of their haste to meet the enemy. Such a course, we 
admit, may in some extraordinary cases, be justifiable. There 
may be crises in which it is better to encounter the enemy with 
muskets and swords, than to lose time. So we have known 
cases in which it was our decided judgment that individuals 
should be commissioned to preach the gospel without any 
knowledge of the original languages of Scripture. But excep- 
tions, be it remembered, do not constitute the rule. So far as 
our experience and observation go, those young men who make 
the most ado about losing time, most need to be kept back from 
the sacred office until they shall have had time to qualify them- 
selves for its solemn responsibilities. Nor is it strange that it 
should be so, for it is an old adage that ignorance is the parent 
of self-confidence. 

Here we wish to say a word respecting the Latin language 
as an aid to sacred literature. No part of the inspired volume 
is written in this language, and, for this reason, some have 
strenuously insisted upon banishing it, as a useless incumbrance 
from the circle of theological studies. To this we reply that 
the Latin tongue was for fifteen centuries identified with the 
history and literature of the church. It is the language of that 
people who, at the time of our Saviour's advent wielded the 
sceptre of the civilized world ; the language of all the Western 
fathers ; and, above all, the language of science, philosophy, 
and literature throughout Europe from the first introduction of 



1838.] Advancement ofBtkUeal KnowU^t* 71 

Christkiiity till the period of the refennation^ and, to a great 
exteDt, throughout the whole of that mighty coDflict of truth 
with error ; and tbat^ as a necessary consequence, it embodies 
vast stores of theological learning of eyery kind, and is inter- 
wovea in ways innumeraUe, as well with the literature of the 
Bible, as with the history of Christianity. But it may be main* 
tained in opposition to this argument, that all that is valuable in 
the Latin bnguage for the purposes of theological learning has 
been tranafened to the English language. To this we reply 
that the student who makes himself thoroughly acquiunted with 
the Latin tongue and with the sacred learning which it em- 
bodies, will know that the assertion is grossly incorrect. While 
he is yet ignorant of the language, or only a superficial smat- 
terer in it, he may be made ),o believe it, but not afterwards. 
Moreover, how is the student in theology to assure himself that 
the Latin tongue has thus been rifled of the accumulated treas- 
ures of ages, and left an empty shell ? When he sees year 
after year new and valuable translations from this into the Eng- 
lish, it cannot be thought either strange or unreasonable that 
be should have some misgivings on the subject, and deterauDe 
to examine and judge for himsel£ 

It is freely conceded diat many mdividuals, without a know- 
ledge eiiher of this or of any ancient language, have been emi- 
nently successfy as preachers of the gospel, and that others, 
well versed ia these languages, have been but feeble and ineffi«« 
cient ministers of the word. But the success of the former 
was attributable not to their ignomnce, but to eminent ministe- 
rial qualifications in other respects, which were wantbg in the 
latter. Thi^re is a tendency in some minds to draw unwarrant^ 
able general conclusions from two or three particular facts. 
They have known several instances of important enterrases 
commenced on Friday which terminated disastrously. They 
ascribe it to the day. Some of their neighbors who use alcohol 
have robust, others who use water, feeble constitutions. They 
are confident that the beverage makes all the difference. 

Thec^ogical seminaries are not founded upon principles de» 
duced from such narrow premises. The experience of eighteen 
centuries has shown that the efficiency of Christ's ambassadors, 
taken as a body, is proportioned to their piety and intelligence, 
and, furthermore, that nothing but intelligence can prevent even 
piety fitnn degenerating into superstition and fanaticism. The 
denuod far a tboiDugUy educated nunistry has called these in- 



73 Advancement of Biblical KntowUdge^ [Jak. 

sthuUons into exbtence, and so long as this demand continues, 
they will be sustained. Experience will undoubtedly modify 
some of their provisions, but, if we rightly judge the signs of 
the times, these modifications will not consist either in abridg- 
ing or excluding any of the departments of theological learning 
now taught m them, but rather in the introduction of more per- 
fect methods of intellectual investigation and moral training. 
The question, how shaU the spirit of active piety be maintained 
in vigorous exercise in the bosoms of theological students during 
the period of their education, so that the cultivation of their 
mord feelings may Iceep pace with the development of their 
intellectual faculties ? — is one of vital importance, and is 
receiving, as it ought, the devout consideration of those who 
are called to preside over these schools of the prophets. In 
our Western seminaries the fields of activity which oQsr them- 
selves to those who are in a course of training for the christian 
mimstry are so many, and so accessible, that little difficulty is 
experienced, so far as external arrangements are concerned. 
Our young men can, if they will, find opportunities enough of 
doing good which do not interfere with the vigorous prosecu- 
tion of their studies. If they sufifer their christian affections to 
grow torpid for want of exercise, it is their own fault. What 
we have now said respecting the West will, we believe, upon 
careful inquiry, be found to hold true of all parts of the Uni- 
ted States. If our theological students wish for humble oppor- 
tunities of usefulness, they can be found every day in all places. 
From these semmaries of the church, thus perfected by ex- 
perience, the most cheering results may be anticipated. We 
may confidently hope that they will train up and send forth an 
army of young men thoroughly furnished to the work of the 
ministry, who shall know how successfully to wield the sword 
of the Spirit, for the demolition of Satan's empire. The present 
may be emphatically styled the monumental era of revelation. 
The record of the btroduction of Christianity into thb apostate 
world, of its mighty conflicts with the powers of darkness, and 
of the stupendous miracles which attested its divine origin, is 
now so incorporated into the history of mankind, that to effiice 
it would be to blot out the annals of the world ; so inseparably 
interwoven into the institutions of civilized nations, that to anni- 
hilate it would be to annihilate the whole fabric of society. It 
b spread out on the pages of antiquity, it is sculptured on mon- 
uments, it is impressed on cobs and medals, it lifts up its 



i638.] Adtaneement ofBiUiedl Knowledge. 73 

▼oice from the ruins of ancient cities and empires, it lives in the 
ordinances not only of the church, but of civil society, it speaks 
in tones of thunder from the progressive ful61ment oi prophecy; 
The mountains and vallies of Palestine, its rivers, lakes and 
caves, its early and latter rain, its '^ snow and vapor and stormy 
wind,'' all bear witness to the oracles of God ; and the seed of 
Abraham are appointed by him to be the unwilling instruments 
of attesting thehr truth in all the nations of their sojourning. It 
is the duty of the christian ministry to understand and fitll in 
with the grand designs of God's providence. It has pleased 
him, in these " latter days," to make the evidences of our holy 
religion (we speak of the external evidences^ monumental in 
their character, and we must prepare to defend and advocate it 
upon this basis. This species of evidence does not indeed 
strike the senses so forcibly as- miracles, nor is it so readily 
apprehended by the mass of the community ; but, to the candid 
inquirer it is not less satisfactory. At 6»t it may appear dim 
and shadowy, but, in proportion as it is scrutinized, it gathers 
increasing bnghtness and lorce. It has nothing to fear from the 
light of truth ; ignorance and prejudice are its only enemies. 

The history of the assaults which have been made upon rev* 
elation since the reformation is replete both with instruction and 
consolation. It has proved itself invulnerable on every point. 
Have its adversaries attempted to show that its doctrines are re- 
pugnant to natural religion ? (jod has raised up some one of his 
servants to demonstrate unansweraUy the analogy between 
natural and revealed religion. Has philosophy, so called, held 
up to ridicule its peculiar doctrines as absurd and self contradic* 
tory ? A deeper philosophy has convicted it of uttering that 
which it unaerstoo4 not, things too wonderful for it, which it 
knew not. Have the genuineness and authenticity of the sacred 
canon been assailed ? The result has been to establish both upon 
an immovable basis. Has the future fulfilment of some one of the 
predictions of revelation been sneered at as a physical impossi- 
bility? Even infidels, upon considerations independent* of 
Scripture, have been led to presage the same event. Who, for 
example, with the knowledge which we now possess of the 
structure and constitution of the earth, will venture to sneer at 
the idea of a literal conflagration which shall envelop her, as 
m the twinkling of an eye, from pole to pole, destroying eveiy 
vestige of her present organization ? Such has been the re- 
sult of past effiirts to shake the foundations of Christianity, and 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 10 



74 On the Naiwe ofhutiinct. [Jan. 

such will be the result of future effi>rts. Meanwhile, as the 
process of investigation has been going on, one after another of 
tbe mists of error that had settled dpwn up<Mi her during the 
long night of the dark ages, has been dissipated, and she made 
to shine in a clearer and more resplendent light. 

It has hitherto been Jehovah's plan to bring in at certain 
eras an overwhelming flood of light and truth to dazzle and con- 
found his enemies. Such were the eras of the introduction of 
the Mosaic and of the christian dispensations ; each of them 
bursting upon the world in all its brightness and glory at a 
period when the church was sunk into a state of the deepest 
depression. May we not hope that another such era began 
with the reformation and is steadily advancing towards the perfect 
day ? an era not characterized, like the two former, by a series 
of stupendous interpositions of miraculous power, but by an 
irrepressible spirit of inquiry and research ; a spirit which shall 
press every department of knowledge to its utmost boundaries ; 
and which, when sanctified by the Spirit of God, and directed 
to the investigation of divine truth, shall under his guidance, 
separate from it the leaven of superstition and false philosophy, 
thus restoring it to its pristine sweetness and purity ; and shall 
shed around the sacred volume such a lustre of evidence as 
shall sear the eye-balls of skepticism and mfidelity, and drive 
them back to the bottomless pit whence they first ascended, 
leaving the everlasting gospel to the undisputed supremacy of 
Che ransomed family of Adam. 



ARTICLE V. 

On the Nature of Instinct. 

By Samael FUh, M. O* BmUhi. 

Instinct is a subject upon which a great deal has been said 
and written, and still we know so litde what it is and upon what 
principles it operates, that we are scarcely wiser than we should 
be if it had never been discussed. While some have consider- 
ed it a mere impulse exerted upon animals without their being 
conscious of it, others have exalted it to an equality with rea- 



1888.] On the Nature cfhstinct. 75 

son-^-considered it reason— 4>ut reason of a lower grade than 
that whiqh distinguishes the human species of a proper age from 
mere brute animals, - It has generally been defined to be the 
power which determines the will of brutes ; or a desire or aver- 
sion acting io the mind without the interventioa of reason or de- 
liberation. While instinct has been considered a power which 
has been exerted without reflectioui and as belonging mostly to 
brutes^ reason has been considered the power by which we de- 
duce one proposition from another, and as confined altogether 
to the human species. Brutes, by most philosophers, have been 
considered as actuated by nothing but instinct, and even the 
human species as actuated by no other principle in their infan- 
tile state. 

Descartes and others after him, supposed that brutes were 
mere mechanical machines, having neither ideas nor sensation ; 
pleasure nor pain; and that their cries and moanings under 
punishment, and adversity, when moved by an opposite im- 
pulse, are produced by the same sort of force, which when 
exerted upon the keys of an organ compels its respective pipes 
to give forth different sounds. Dr. Reid of modem times has 
espoused the doctrine of a mechanical principle, but differs from 
Descartes b supposing that the actions which are resolvable in- 
to this principle are of two kinds, those of instinct and those of 
habit. 

Smellieand Dr. Darwin are inexact opposition to. a mechan- 
ical force — to a corporeal hypothesis. They contend that in- 
stinct is a mental principle, and that brutes possess an intelligent 
feculty of the same nature, though more limited in its extent, than 
that of our own species. They are agreed in supposing that in- 
stinct is a mental efibrt, and therefore a faculty of reason , but differ 
by the former supposing that reason is the result of instinct, and 
the latter that instinct is the result of reason. Darwin recites 
many instances, with how much propriety those who read may 
judge, to show that the facultv which has been denominated in- 
stinct is in reality reason. An idea of his opinion, in general, 
may be inferred from the two following extracts from his 
Zoonomy. ^^ By a due attentibn to these circumstances, many 
of the actions, which at first sight seemed only referable to an 
inexplicable instinct, will appear to have been acquired, like all 
other animal actions that are attended with consciousness, by re- 
peated effbrts of our muscles under the conduct of our sensations 
and desires." ^' If it should be asked what induces a bird to 



76 On the Nature ofhutinct. [Jan. 

sit weeks on its first eggs unconscious that a brood of young 
ones will be the product ? The answer will be that, it is the 
same passion that induces the human mother to hold her off- 
spring whole nights and days in her arms, and press it to her 
bosom, unconscious of its future growth to sense and manhood, 
till observation or tradition have informed her." 

Another set of philosophers have contended that instincts are 
of a mixed kind, holding an intermediate station between mat- 
ter and mind ; or that in some instances they are simply ma- 
terial, and in others simply mental. Cudworth, at the head of 
one division of these, from an attachment to the Platonic theory 
of the creation, an important principle of which is, that '^ incor- 
poreal form," or " an active and plastic nature," exists through- 
oat its wide domain, independendy of pure mind and pure mat- 
ter, supposed that instinct might be resolved into the operation 
of this secondary energy, in proportion to its existence in the 
universe. M. Buffon at the head of the second division of this 
class, not wiUmg to accede altogether to the mechanical theory 
of Descartes, or to aUot to animals below the rank of man the 
possession of an intelligent principle, permitted them to be pos- 
sessed of the principle of life, and allowed them the feculty of dis- 
tmguishing between pleasure and pain, with the possession of a 
desire for the former and an aversion for the latter. M. Rei- 
men, a German professor, differing in some measure from this 
theory ; divides the actions which he believes ought to pass 
under the name of instinct into three classes, mechanical, rep- 
resentative and spontaneous. Mechanical, be considers those 
actions of animal organs over which the will has no control, 
as the pulsations of the heart, the secretion of the bile, pancrea- 
tic juice, etc., and the dilatation of the pupil of the eye ; repre- 
sentative, those which depend upon an imperfect memory, of 
which brutes are allowed to share in some small degree ; and 
spontaneous, those which originate from M. Buffon's admitted 
mculty of distinguishing (in the brute creation^ pleasure from 
pain, and the desire resulting from thb distinguishing propensi^ 
of possessing the one and being freed from the other. 

The great Cuvier supposes that instinct consists of ideas which 
do not originate from sensation, but which flow immediately 
from the brain and which are truly innate. ^' The understand- 
iogi" says he '^ may have ideas without the aid of the senses ; 
two thirds of the brute creation are moved by ideas which they 
do not owe to their sensations, but which flow immediately 



1888.] Oti the Nahart of BuHnct. 77 



fifom the hrain. Instinct (xxistitutes this order of phenomena ; 
it is composed of ideas truly innate, in which the senses have 
never had the smallest share." 

A person who has attended to all these theories, and to all 
which has ever been written or said upon the subject, is but little 
wiser than when he commenced his investigations. ' Some of 
them, even those of men of great eminence in other respects, 
are too absurd not to be considered so by men of ordinary abil- 
ities. The most inconsistent theories are those which consid* 
er animals in the scale of beings next below man, to be mere 
machines, and to be moved by a mere mechanical impulse. 
Several other theories which have been mentioned are made up 
of a collection of inconsistencies, and unintelligible absurdities ; 
and a person attains no knowledge from attending to them. 
To obviate all the difficulty, and to give place to a theory upon 
a more rational hypothesis, M. Dupont of Nemours, France, 
in an article read before the National Institute, proposes to drop 
the term altogether, and fiirther insists that there is no such 
thing as instinct ; and that every action which has been referred 
to such a Acuity, originates from intelligence, thought, exam- 
ple, or from the association of ideas. This, it will be perceived, 
18 a revival m a new form, of the theory of Smellie and Darwin. 

Dr. Ghx)d, in his Book of Nature, which we have called 
considerably to our aid, after taking a general survey of the opin- 
ions and theories of other philosophers, comes to the conclusion 
that the principle of instinct never has been explicitly pointed 
out. After a few preliminary observations, he proposes to ex- 
hibit a new view, or a new theory upon the subject. He directs 
the attention to inorganic matter, which he has previously ex- 
tensively spoken of; particularly to some of the more promi- 
nent characters by which this is distinguished from organic mat- 
ter, as a stone from a plant or an animal. The stone, he savs, 
was produced fortuitously, formed by external accretion, and is 
only destructible by mechanical or chemical agencies. The 
plant, he observes, is produced by generation, brought forward 
m its growth by nutrition and by internal accretion, and render- 
ed destructible by death. Animals difier from plants in a num- 
ber of respects, but they are both characterized by a property 
which be terms the principle of life. *^ Liife," says he, ^' or 
this mysterious or fogitive essence is a distinct principle from 
that of thought, and from that of sensation. Mr. John Hunter 
has traced it to many of the organized fluids as yfeW as the 



78 On the Nature ofhMinct. [Jan. 

solids^ especially to the blood. In every organized system, 
whether animal or vegetable^ and in every part of such system , 
whether solid or fluid, may be traced that power, which with 
such propriety may be denominated the principle of life. Of 
its cause and nature we know no more than we know of the 
cause and nature of magnetism. It b neither essential nund, 
nor essential matter; it is neither passion nor sensation ; though 
it is distinct from all these, it is capable of combining with 
any of them. It is possessed of its own book of laws, to which, 
under the same circumstances, it adheres without the smallest 
deviation. 

The agency by which it operates, he says, is what should be 
denominated instinct, and its actions, when its sole and uniform 
aim is accomplished, instinctive actions. Instinct, whenever 
manifesdy directing its operations to the health, preservation 
and reproduction of the living frame, or any part of the living 
frame, is the operation of the lining principle. It is that pow- 
er which characterizes and distinguishes organized from unor- 
ganized matter — ^pervades and regulates the former as gravita- 
tion pervades the latter, uniformly operating by definitive means 
in definitive circumstances, to the general welfare of the individ- 
ual system on its separate organs ; advances them to perfection, 
preserves them in it, or lays the foundation for their reproduc- 
tion as the case may be. 

It applies, according to the same theorist, equaUy to plants 
and to animals, and to every part of the plant and to every part 
of the animal, as long as the principle of life continues in them. 
It maintains from age to age the distinctive characters of plants 
and animals, carries ofiT the waste or worn out matter, and sup- 
splies new — very often suggests the mode of cure when diseases 
and injuries have occurred or been inflicted, and even effects the 
cure itself. ^' It is,'' continues he, ^' the divinity that stirs within 
us, and is the much noted * vis medicatrix naturae,' of so many 
noted physicians." 

This is giving it an application so much more extensive than 
we have been accustomed to think it entitied to and as applied 
to it, and is linking and classifying actions together, so widely 
deviating from each other, especially m appearance, that we can 
with difficulty, even when we can conceive of notiibg more 
plausible, persuade ourselves to aflbrd it our assent. Instinct 
has generally, if we have not entertained wrong conceptions, 
been supposed to comprehend those actions only, which teemed 



1838.] On the nature of hutinct* 79 

to arise, whether in the new bom infimt or in brute animab, 
from a voluntary motion. Su^b are the acts of the infant, when 
from some cause or other, it seeks nutriment from its. mother's 
breast ; such are the acts of all the mammiferous animals in tbe 
same circumstances, the seeming anxiety of these to take care and 
preserve their young, with a great many other similar acts ; such 
are the actions of the feathered tribes to sit for weeks upon their 
eggs until they are hatched, and then to feed and brood over 
them until they are capable of taking care of themselves ; and 
such are a thousand acts of a similar kind in other animals, which 
it is unnecessary in this place to particularize. 

With proper deference to a character so esteemed as a phy- 
^cian, so much admired as a professor, and so noted as an author, 
I shall venture to deviate from the above mentioned theorist, 
and prescribe narrower limits to the actions of instinct, and in 
some respects ascribe thexn to different faculties than those to 
which they have been usually considered as belonging. 

To impart clear views, I shall follow still further the theory 
of Dr. Good, and afterwards commence the examination of the 
one just mentioned. At the conclusion of the first lecture of 
Dr. Good, he says that " bstinct may be defined the operation 
of the principle of organized life by the exercise of certain natural 
powers directed to the present or future good of the individual ; 
and reason the operation of the principle of intellectual life, 
by the exercise oi certain acquired powers directed to the same 
end.'' Towards the commencement of his other lecture, be 
says, ''Instinct is the common law or praperty of organized 
matter, as gravitation is of unorganized ; and the former bears 
the same analogy to sensation and perception that the latter 
does to crystalization and chemical affinity. Instinct is the gen- 
eral faculty of the organized mass as gravitation is of the unpr- 
ganized mass ; sensation and perception are peculiar powers or 
fiiculties appertaining to the second ; they can only exist under 
certain circumstances of the organized or unorganized matter to 
which they respectively belong. Gravitation belongs equally to 
the smallest portions of unorganized matter ; instinct in like 
manner belongs equally to the smallest portions of organized 
matter; it exists alike in solids and fluids ; m the whole firame, 
and in every part of the firame ; in every organ and in every 
part of every organ, so long as the principle of life continues. ' 

There might be some beauty, at least, and some propriety in 
such a theory, if the mind bad not restricted it to narrower limits. 



80 On the NatuH ofiuiinct. 1838.] 

As the case is, it seems like breaking over barriers which nature 
had designed not to have broken over ; or like invading a coun- 
try with a powerful force, when we had no right, or just cause. 
In the present essay, all those acti<Hi8 or motions which are per- 
formed without our being conscious of them, and which have been 
called involuntary motions, such as the action of the Hbart and 
arteries, the motion of the stomach and bowels, the secretion of 
the various fluids, the contraction and dilatation of the pupil of 
the eye, and many others of a like kind, will be left out of the 
catalogue of instinctive motions. The whole vegetable class of 
organized bodies, of course will be left out. This, it is believed, 
might with much more propriety, be arranged under some other 
name. There seems to be no better way of classing what are 
herein considered to be instinctive actions, than by taking those 
whk^h in brute animals and in the new bom infant seem to be 
performed, to a greater or less degree, through the intervention 
of the will. In respect to the former, there is no necessity of 
any further particularizing, and in regard to the latter, those 
acts onlv are thought of, which in after life, as far as they ap- 
ply to the human species, are universally allowed to be per- 
formed through the mtervention of the will, add as fiu: as they 
apply to the brute creation, to what trppears to be the will. 

Smellieand Darwin, as before stated, have mtroduced a theory, 
in which they strangely contend, that brute animals and infants 
are actuated by the faculty of reasoning. This we shall not 
discuss very particularly. We shall not contend for it to any 
great extent, and we shall not exclude it altogether, considering 
it in every respect indefensible. Some of the actions, which 
we shall consider as belonging to instinct, are performed with- 
out reflection and without much seeming connection with it, 
and some through the intervention of what, if it is not reason, 
appears to be allied to reason. All instinctive motions call 
into action those muscles which are ordinarily considered to be 
under the control of the will. 

Though instinctive actions — those considered such by Dr. 
Good, according to the limits above defined, have been con- 
siderably reduced, yet a number remain, and they consist of 
several kinds. In the account now to be given by them, we 
will begin with those which first present themselves in the new 
bom infant, and other mammiferous animals. The first of any 
impk>rtance which here presents itself, is a nestling upon its 
mother's breast. This, it will be here observed, is not pioduc- 



J8S8.] On the Naiure of tittmct. 81 

ced by a mere mechanical impulse, like what might be produced 
upoD dead, inorganic, or disorganized matter, but from an im- 
pulse originating from proper and natural feelings— ^sensations 
and desires-— such as present themselves, as well among brutes 
as hiunan creatures, though with less acuteness in both, in 
after life. From a sense of hunger and inanition, in which 
there can be no mistake, derires are created after nourishment 
which occasion an uneasiness and nestling, and from a sense of 
smell, which from its never having been blunted or contamina- 
ted by obtuse and unnatural objects, i» perhaps more acute 
than in subsequent life, its proper place, to a greater or less de- 
gree, is pointed out, and the infiint, or the young of brutes is 
satisfied. A person who seriously and rationally takes this m* 
lo coosideratjoo, can no more believe that it is performed with- 
out consciousness, than that at a later period of his existence 
he cannot tell what hunger, and agreeable and disagreeable 
odors are. 

As age advances, there is a propensity with the child to laugh 
and play, and with the colt, the calf, the lamb to gambol and 
jump, which are healthful actions, and excited by a desire for 
exercise. If health prevails there is a glow of pleasurable sen- 
sations experienced, and an impulse occasicmed by these, calcu- 
lated to put in motion some of the various muscles provided for 
such purposes. 

When the young are old enough, a different kind of food 
from that of the mother's milk is required, and the young of all 
animals, from natural desires, or from seeing others feed, or 
from both, partake of it themselves. New propensities and 
new desires develop and present themselves as age advances, 
and hence we see new intimacies forming, new joys and new 
pleasures experienced, and new engagements and new connec- 
tions entered into. A new connection between the sexes takes 
place, but not without a peculiar sensation which directs to it, 
and an assurance that new pleasures will result from it. There 
is nothing inexplicable or wonderful in tbb, nothing but what 
we can readily account for, that is considering ourselves such 
beings as we are, and the mystery, that others have considered 
as belonging to instinctive actions, vanishes the moment they 
are taken up in their proper light. We know what our own 
feelings are in regard to these things, and we have no reason 
to suppose from what we every day behold, that there is any 
essential difference between our own feelings in these respects, 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 11 



82 On the Nature of Butind. [Jan* 



and those of brutes. We behold the latter provided with the 
senses of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling, just like our- 
selves ; we see them actuated by hunger and thirst, as we are ; 
provided with organs of reproduction, and apparently actuated 
by the same feelings in regard to the propensides belonging to 
these. They are possessed of a brain, a spinal chord, nerves 
originating from these and extending to the respective senses, 
and to all the different muscles. Why should they not be sub- 
ject to pleasure and pain, desires and aversions, affections and 
antipathies like ourselves ? Why is there any thing more inex- 
plicable and indefinable in things of a like nature, whether they 
belong to brutes or to ourselves ? 

There seem to be feelings of pity, love, compassion, fear, 
and many other passions, belonging to brutes ; and why should 
it be otherwise ? They are endowed with AeA and blood, 
^TJthe and appear to be in agony when a wound is inflicted, 
grow lean when under the influence of disease and when food is 
withheld, and thrive and look plump when under opposite cir- 
cumstances. We see them operated upon by anger, rage, 
hatred and revenge, as well as by the milder passions. If they 
are endowed with the same senses, the same desires and aver- 
sions, the same propensities and passions that man is, they are 
probably moved by the same impulses, all of which lead to 
similar results to what they do in ourselves, only in different de- 
grees. In all these comparisons, the infant of our own spe- 
cies should be reckoned with brutes, because instinct has been 
supposed to apply to him much in the same way as to animab 
of the brute creation. 

There are different actions in different orders, genera and 
species of brute animals, the peculiarities of which require par- 
ticular notice. The dog barks, the cat mews, the lion roars, 
the horse neighs, which peculiarities are accounted for, upon 
the principle, that there is a peculiarity in their respective vocal 
organs, and in the muscles belonging to the respective brute an- 
imals which from the proper impulse are excited into action. 
We know not exactly what the feeling is that causes the dog to 
bark, but when we pay attention to the incidents that seem to 
be the cause of it, and to the peculiar sort of excitement that 
the animal at such a time exhibits, we can be at but little loss 
about it. It is not hunger that produces it ; it is not fear ex- 
acdy ; it is not the same feeling that causes the fox to burrow, 
the rabbit to hide itself in the thicket, and the bird to fly to its 



1888*] On the Nature of tutinct. 83 

perch upoa the tree. It is probably a difibrent feeliDg fixMn 
what any other animal experiences, but it may be stmilar to 
that which causes the ass to bray, or the hen to cackle. There 
is an excitement occasioned peculiar to that species of animals, 
and that excitement produces the efhn that produces the note 
wluch we call a bark. If it was a cat, even supposing the sen- 
sation and the impulse were the same, the note or the tone of 
voice would be different, because the confonnation of the par- 
ticular apparatus is difl^rent. By alternately pressing upon the 
re^on of the lungs and desbting from pressure in a dead 
crow, the same hoarse note is produced, which it is accustomed 
to utter when alive. So that it is not the peculiarity of instinct 
and peculiarity of impulse, that produces the peculiarity of 
sound, but the particular conformation of the vocal organs. 

The various feathered tribes, after having deposited their eggs 
in some convenient place, or in a nest formed with so much 
skill that the most finbhed artist of the human species cannot 
equal it, sit days and weeks without the smallest weariness or 
seeming impatience. Here is as complete a specimen of in- 
stinctive action as could be exhibited, and one which the disci- 
ples of Descartes would be as likely to consider mechanical as 
any of that class of actions. What but an unknown and inex- 
plicable impulse, it may be asked, can induce these creatures to 
sit so long, when it is so unlikely, especially in the first instance, 
what the result will be ? In regard to this being altogether un- 
known to them, there is some doubt. In regard to the reply 
to such a c[uestion, I can state without much hesitancy, that it 
is probably a similar impulse to that which induces the fond 
mother to watch over her infimt babe and undergo so much so- 
licitude for its wel&re. From what has been stated, and from 
what is every d^y seen, it is evident that the brute creation are 
operated upon by passion — ^by love, fear, hatred, compassion, 
and many others of which we know ourselves to be possessed. 
Though there is nothing in the human species that exactly cor- 
responds with the propensity or passion of the feathered tribes 
to sit whole weeks upon their eggs, yet there are propensities 
which are like it, and which might be readily perceived to be 
like it were we to pay scrupulous attention to the various affec- 
tions belongmg to the human race. It is no more strange that 
there should be such an affection in these animals, than that 
there should be love, love of offipring, m our own race. A 
person) after beholding with how much tenacity the hen sits 



84 On the Nature oflmtkM. [Jan. 

upon her eggs, must have but very little sagacity not to per^ 
ceive that it is a passion, and a passion not altogether unlike 
what may be discovered in animals of a dilB^rent order, and 
even among that order of which he is an individual member. 
We can more readily convince ourselves that it is a passion, 
than we can convince ourselves that it is reason, or altc^ether 
reason, for though the animal is so very solicitous to con*- 
tinue upon her nest, yet she knows not whetlier it is her 
own eggs she is sitting upon or those of a different species of 
the feathered race. Although she knows not, or appears to 
know not that it is her own eggs she is sitting upon^ it argues 
not that she is altogether unconscious of what the result wiU be 
— unconscious that there will be a brood of young birds when 
she has set long enough. One thing more will be mentioned 
in regard to this, and that is, that though she appears not to 
have reason, she may in a slight degree be possessed of it, but 
from the ardor of the passion which induces her to be attached 
to her nest, reason is overpowered and drowned, as sometimes 
happens with individuals of the human race, when their anger 
gets the mastery. Cases are known, where the ardor of the 
hen has not perhaps, arrived to its full height, in which, to 
change her eggs would cause her to forsake her nest. 

It has been stated that there are several kinds of instinctive ac- 
tion. Those which present themselves in the young of mam- 
nuferous animals, as observed when they are nestling for their 
mother's milk, are one kind. Those of which we have just 
been speaking are another, and there are others still to be men- 
tioned. The first are those which more immediately arise from 
sensation, the others irom passion, and there are still others 
which may be supposed to originate from habit, or partly habit 
and partly passion. Ducks and geese have a strong propensity 
to swim upon the water, and that the propensity originates part- 
ly from habit may be inferred from the circumstance that they 
can be deprived of this indulgence without apparent detriment. 
It is passion, or a species of it, that actuates the dog to fly at 
and to hunt other animals. A similar propensity causes other 
animals, though ever so able to defend themselves, to flee 
from, or wish not to encounter the dog. It is passion, if it is 
not sensation, that influences the cat to watch for and catch 
mk)e and other pestiferous animals. One species of animals are 
actuated by one sort of impulse, and another species by another. 
It is natural for the hawk to watch for smaller birds> the fox to 



1838.] Onthe Natwre of Butinct. 85 

watch for poultry, the wolf for sheep, etc. It is natural for 
some birds to migrate, for some to burrow and for some to swim 
upon the water. Sensation, passion, habit ; sometimes one, 
sometimes more, or the whole are the cause. 

Besides these, there is another kind of instinct, if it is instinct, 
which is allied to reason, if it is not reason, when a horse upon 
coming where two or more roads centre, almost invariaUy 
takes that which will bring him to hb home the quickest, the ex- 
istence of a greater or less degree of reason must be supposed 
to actuate the animal. If a dog untold strives to protect a child 
fiom the danger which threatens it, it carries the idea that this 
creature has a portion of that foculty which is called reason^ 
When a fox crosses and recrosses its track in order to puzzle 
the dog which is in pursuit of it, it shows that it has something 
of that ingredient which were it in man would be called reason. 
I have known a hcwse, when leading him, stop as suddenly for 
me to replace my portmanteau which had fallen from it, as 
though it had been man. I have known a dog, when a person 
had been making preparation to kill him, act as shy and en- 
deavor to keep itself out of the way, almost as much as though 
it had been man. 1 have known a fox, while crossing a pond 
upon the ice, after coming to a weak place, feel as carefully as 
a person would feel if he were examining it, and instead of 
stepping upon it as it had done before, lie down and roll, to 
avoid breaking through. A thousand such things might be 
mentioned to show that brutes, if they have not reason, have 
something so nearly allied to it, that it scarcely deserves a sep- 
arate name. The wisdom of the bee to construct its curiously- 
wrought checker-woik for a depository for its honey, appears 
like reason, and it is probably reason combined with that par- 
ticukar propensity wUch causes the hen to sit whole weeks widi 
the prospect in view of at a proper time beholding its infant 
progeny. The elephant, the beaver, the ant and many other 
creatures, are possessed of what, if it were beheld in the hu- 
man species, would be called reason. That it is reason we will 
not pretend to decide, but should be glad to know in what re- 
spect it differs irom reason. Some of the more unusual phe- 
nomena of instinctive action ought perhaps to be mentioned, 
but we know of none but what would come under one of the 
four heads of instinctive impulse which have been noticed. 
There is a species of animals which at a particular period coUoct 
in vast bodies, and after making all needful pvspamtion soortfHr 



86 Dr. Sckmudeer*8 Appeal. [Jan. 

a given point, and whatever the impediments may be, continue the 
same course without turning to the right or to the left, until they 
arrive at the place of their destination or perish in tlie attempt. 
This, from being uncommon, may appear inegular and perhaps 
to some inexplicable, but if due inquiries were made about it, it 
would doubtless meet with an easy explanation. We have 
not yet learned all the attributes of the animal world. There 
are animals that have less senses than man, and there may 
be those that have more. If we knew what these were, 
we should not perhaps ascribe so much mystery to instinct — 
should not exhibit it in such a light as to confound the wisdom 
of the wise. More might be said upon this subject, and more 
probably ought to be said, to evolve our theory from the mists 
which encompass it, but as a denser mist might place itself in its 
stead, we shidl leave it where it is, hopmg that if any light has 
been elicited, abler pens will be induced to continue the subject 
and disencumber it from every thing that b mysterious. 



ARTICLE VI. 

Fraternal Appeal to the American Churches, togeth- 
er WITH A Plan for Catholic Union on Apostolic 
Principles.* 

By B. B. Scbmaeknr, D. D., ^olbnor of mdiotie tad Polemic Theology in the Theol. 
Bern, of Gen. Synod of Uie LnUieran church, Gettyiborg, A. 

WTW &, nM^iiq ^futg* — Jkbus. 
j^ KvgMq^ fUa nUniQj er fianturfuu — Paul, 

When the sincere and unsophisticated Christian contemplates 
the image of the church as delineated both in its theory and 

* It is proper to inform the readers, that the whole of the follow- 
ing article, and the substance of that which (ProvideDce permitting) 
will appear in the April number of the Repository, and will exhibit 
the details of the Plan of Union were written about a year ago, and there- 
fore prior to the eicision of a portion of the Presbyterian church by the 
iast General Aflsembly^ This obserration may be neceamy to prevent 



1838.] Dr. Sdmueker^i Appeal 8T 

practice by the Saviour and his apostles, be is charmed by the- 
deligbtfiil spirit of unity and brotherly love by which it is char- 
acterized. When he hears the beloved disciple declare ^^ God 
is love, and they that dwell in love dwell in God :" and agab^ 
^* Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and 
every one that loveth is bom of Grod, and knoweth God. He 
that loveth not, knoweth not Grod ; for God is love :'' and 
again, ** Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one 
another — ^If any man say I love God, and hateth his brother, 
he is a liar ; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath 
seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen ? And tins 
commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God, love 
his brother also." — When the Christian listens to such declara- 
tions as these, and numerous others of similar import ; when 
forgetting things as they exist around him, he brings his whole 
soul under the influence of this love to God and the brethren ; 
be perceives the moral beauty of these sentiments, and finds 
his heart vibrate m delightful unison with them. But when 
he awakes from this fascinating dream and beholds the body 
of Christ rent into difierent divisions, separately organized, pro- 
fessing difierent creeds, denouncing each other as in error, and 
often times, hating and being bated ; his spirit is grieved within 
him, and he asks how can these things be among brethren ? In 
the sacred record he looks in vain for the sectarian parties wluch 

the miaapprehensioD of some remarks, which might otherwise nat- 
urally be regarded as allustons to more recent events. 

As a disciple of the common Saviour, the writer feels a sincere 
desire for the prosperity of every protestant frindameDtally orthodox 
denomination, and for another ** blessed Reformation" in the entire- 
Romish church itself. As such, he feels it his privilege and duty to- 
address a few ideas to his Protestant brethren generally, on the re- 
lations which do or ought to subsist between the different portions-- 
of Christ's kingdom. And he would respectfully and affectionately 
request them to test the sentiments advanced, not by their ecclesiastical 
standards, which are the work of uninspired though good men, but by 
the ^ law and the testimony," by the inspired rule of God's holy word.. 
Let them solemnly inquire whether the Protestant churches organ- 
ized and operating on the principles, fully developed in the next Num- 
ber, would not approximate much nearer to the apostolic church, than* 
they now do ; whether they could not act much more efficiently and 
harmoniously in advancing the triumphs of the cross in the heathoD 
and the papal world ; and whether we might not even hope again to 
the days, when surrounding observers will exclaim : ^ See how thi 
k>ve one another ?" 



88 Dr. Schnrndcer^i j^peaL [Jam. 

DOW constitute all that is seen of the cbuich of the Redeemer; 
be finds nothing there of Lutherans, of Presby terians, of Metho* 
dbts, of Episcopalians, of Baptists. But be sees that when the 
formation of such parties was attempted at Corinth, Paul 
deemed it necessary to write them a long letter, and besought 
them by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to have no divis- 
ions among them. The Christian is therefore constrained to 
mourn over the desolations of Zion and to meet the solemn in- 

Juiry, cannot a balm be found hr the ulcerous divisions which 
eface the body of Christ ? 

Many such hearts there happily are at the present day, 
which are relentmg from the rigor of party organization and 
sectarian asperity. The love of Chnst, that sacred flame 
which warms them, and bids them strive together for the con- 
version of a world, also melts down the walls of partition, which 
might well enough keep Jews asunder from Gentiles, but was 
never permitted to sever one Jew from another, and much less 
ought now to separate a Christian from hb brodier. Many are 
pondering these things in their hearts, and asking ought breth- 
ren to be thus estranged ? ought Ephraim thus to envy Judah, 
and Judah to vex Ephraim ? Their number too is multiplying. 
Brotherly love and christian liberality are on the whole progres- 
sive, and tender increasing facilities, — whilst they urge the im- 
perious obligation of this inquiry upon every enlightened and 
sanctified intellect. Happily many of the ablest heads and noblest 
hearts in Christendom feel called to review the grtmndy which 
the Protestant churches have been led to assvme partly by op^ 
tion^ partly by inconsideration, and partly by the coercion of 
circumstances. The successful prosecution of this inquiry de- 
mands the casting off of the prejudices of education and long 
established habits, a recurrence to the elementary principles of 
Christianity, of christian doctrine, of christian government, of 
christian duty : and the men, be they ministers or be they lay- 
men, who would regard this subject with indifference, or d»- 
miss it with a sneer, minr well inquire whether the love of 
Christ dwells in them, in this great concern not self-interest, 
but the interest of the Redeemer's kingdom, should be the mo- 
tive of our actions ; not victory, but truth should be our aim. 

In this incipient stage of our discussion, we would premise a 
few principles, or draw a few lines, by which the general course 
of our investigation may be recognized and the results in some 
degree be anticipated at which we shall arrive. It is admitted, 



1838.] Dr. Schmueker^M Appeal 89 

a) As one bouse cannot contain all the Christians in the world, 
or in a particular country, there must necessarily be different 
houses of worship. 

b) As all Chiistians in a particular country cannot be incor- 
porated into one congregation to enjoy the ordinances of .the 
gospel, and to execute the duties of mutual edification, super- 
vision and discipline ; there must be different congregations , as 
there were in the days of the apostles ; whatever may be the 
proper principle for their construction, and the proper bond for 
their union with each other. 

c) We premise as a point conceded, that all the several de- 
nominations tenned orthodox, which are but clusters of such 
difierent congregations, are parts of the true visible church 
of Christ; because, in the conscientious judgment of all enlight- 
ened Christians, they hold the essentials of the gospel scheme of 
faith and practice ; and secondly, because the Saviour himself 
has acknowledged them as such by the seal of his grace and 
Spirit. ^' When James, Cephas and John perceived the grace 
thai was given to me" says Paul, to the Galatians,* ^* they gave 
to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship." And where 
is the bigot, who at the present day, would claim his to be the 
only true church, and thus repudiate all others as synagogues of 
Satan? 

d) As these denominations hold dissentient views on some 
nonessential points, it is demonstrable that all except one of 
them must entertain some error. For of two contrary opinions 
only one can be true. But the pretension that any one sect is 
right in all things, and all others m error so far as they diverge 
from th'is one, is highly improbable in itself, is forbidden by 
chrisdan humility, by a knowledge of human nature, and by the 
amount of talent, learning and piety in all the several churches. 
Hence some error, in all probability, is an attribute of each 
sect. 

e) Finally, we premise that ministers and laymen, though 
pious, are fallible, are sanctified but in part and liable to temp- 
tation from secular motives and feelings, even in things per- 
taining to the Redeemer's kingdom. Hence they are all un- 
der obligation to review their course of thought and action, 
and ought to be willing, for the glory of their God and Saviour, 
to retrace and amend whatever may be found amiss. This ob- 

• Chap. {2: 9. 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 12 



90 Dr. Schmucker's Appeal. [Jak. 

ligation devolves alike upon the writer and the reader. With a 
deep impression of its importance, its claims are urged on your 
present attention. 

Under the presumption therefore that in these diversities of 
opinion we are all more or less in error, let us inquire whether it is 
right that the body of Christ should on account of these diver- 
sities be rent into so many different parts, under circumstances 
creating different interests in each, and strongly tending to alien- 
ate their affections, and dissolve that bond of fraternal love, by 
which they should be united, or whether it is the duty of Chris- 
tians to endeavor to heal these divisions, and promote unity 
among all whom they profess to regard as disciples of Christ. 
The will of our divine Master will become apparent to us 
whilst we successively consider, 

I. The Scriptural injunctions. 

IL The example of the apostles and primitive Christians. 

III. The consequences which these divisions produce. 

In the wealthy and corrupt city of Corinth, a christian church 
nad been planted by Paul, watered by the eloquent ApoUos, 
and blessed by him, from whom alone can come any genuine 
increase. In this church, it seems, there appeared symptoms 
of the spirit of sectarianism, that spirit, ^^ which now worketh" 
not only '^ among the children of disobedience," who have a 
name to live whilst they are dead ;" but which often mars the en- 
joyment and tarnishes the graces of the members of Christ's spirit- 
ual body. The Corinthian brethren had long been familiar with 
the several sects of heathen philosophers and religionists and by a 
natural transition were led to array themselves into parties accord- 
ing to some religious differences which arose among them. Some 
said '' I am of Paul," probably because he first laid the foundation 
of the Corinthian church ;* others said " I am of Apollos," per* 
haps on account of his superior eloquence ; and others said '' I 
am of Cephas," either because like Peter, they cherished Jew- 
ish predilections, or were converted by him elsewhere. Here 
then was an attempt to introduce different sects or religious de* 
nominations into the church of Christ, ranged under different 
leaders such as Paul, ApoUos, Peter, Luther, Calvin, Zuingli 
or Wesley ; and what are the feelings of the noble-minded 
Paul ? Does he approve of such a course ? Let us hear his 
own words, my brethren, and pray that the spirit of our lacerated 

• Chap. 3:10. Acts 18: II. 



1888.] Dr. Sehmucker^s Appeal. 91 

Master may enable us to understand them. ^^ I beseech you, 
bretbreoy by the Lord Jesus Christ," (by the hope you cherish 
through him, by his suffering, by his blood), I beseech you, 
''that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms 
{oxiofAuta) or sects among you ; but that ye be joined together 
in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it bath been 
declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by them which 
are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions (epidsg) 
among you : namely that every one of you saitb," either " I am of 
Paul" (he is my leader), " or I am of Apollos, or I am of Peter, 
or I am of Christ. Is Christ," (i. e. the body of Christ) " di- 
vided ? Was Paul" (or either of those whose names ye assume 
and whom ye wish to place at tlie side of Christ as leaders or 
heads of the church) " crucified for you ? Or were ye baptized 
into the name of Paul (or of Apollos, or of Peter, so that ye 
were received into their church, and not into the church of 
Christ 1) "I thank God," (since ye thus abuse the privi- 
lege of having been baptized) '' that I baptized none of you except 
Crispus" (the ruler of the synagogue) " and Gaius" (whose hos- 
pitality I enjoyed whilst at Corinth ;) so that ye cannot with 
any semblance of truth allege, that I baptized you in my own 
name and thus formed a peculiar sect of Christians. 

Such is the powerful and decided testimony given by the in- 
spired apostle Paul, against the spirit of sectarianism. Ought 
not every man who believes himself a Christian, to feel the force 
of this rebuke and ask. Lord, what wilt thou have me to do to 
heal thy wounded body ? The apostle does not ev<en introduce 
into his argument the points of diversity among them, on ac^ 
count of which they were arraying themselves into different 
parties. The simple facts that they were baptized into Christ, 
and into Christ alone, i. e. were members of the church in good 
standing, and that Christ must not be divided, are the only argu- 
ments whk^h he deems requisite to prove the impropriety of their 
divisions and of their assumption of different names. He would 
have them Christians and nothing but Christians ; not Pauline 
Christians, nor Apollme, nor Cephine, nor Lutheran, nor Calvinis- 
tb, nor Wesleyan Christians, not because he had any antipathy to 
Apollos or Peter; but because any such divisions based on dif- 
ference of opinions or personal attachments naturally tended to. 
rend asunder the body of Christ. Let it be distinctly remem- 
bered then, that the argument of Paul for the unity of the Re- 
deemer's visible church is twofold ; first, he maintains that this 



92 Dr. Sdimucker'i Appeal. 1888.] 

uDity and the impropriety of divisions on party-grounds are evi- 
dently presupposed by the fact, that all its members are baptized 
into the name of Christ alone ; and secondly from the fact that all 
divisions based on difference, are equivalent to dividing the one 
body of Chrbt. Nor does he here affix any limitations to these 
principles, and no uninspired authority is competent to prescribe 
any others than such as may indubitably flow from other inspired 
declarations or from the obvious nature of Christianity itself. 
The apostle Paul therefore distinctly forbids the cutting up of 
those whom he would acknowledge as Christians at all, into dif- 
ferent parties or sects. And this he does even by anticipation, 
for in all probability, these paities had not yet fully separated 
from one another, nor renounced ecclesiastical inter-communion. 
Yet there were in the apostolic age, as well as at present, men 
who claimed to be Christians, but whom this great apostle 
was unwilling to acknowledge as such, and commanded ^' after 
the first and second admonition, to reject."* 

In the passage, ''A man that is a heretic (^aigtr&xop api^gfo- 
nov) after the first and second admonition reject," the apostle 
himself limits the application of the principles above urged on 
the Corinthians, by showing that although he forbade the form- 
ation of sects or divisions among Christians on the ground of 
difference, yet there were occasionally persons in the church, 
who if incorrigible, deserved to be cast out of it altogether. 
The crime which in the judgment of Paul merited this punish- 
ment, he designates by the term heretical (algetixov)^ which 
in the English language distinctly refers to one who denies a 
fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The original word also 
sometimes seems to have this sense ; but more frequently it 
signifies a schismatic, one who makes a division, or forms a sect. 
In the former acceptation, the passage inculcates the salutary 
duty, acknowledged and practised by all the orthodox churches 
of the land, of excluding from their communion and from mem- 
bership, those who deny a fundamental doctrine of the gospel, 
that is a doctrine unitedly believed by all the orthodox churches, 
and regarded as essential by them. Some denominations would 
exercise still greater rigor, and exclude from their communion 
the believers of doctrines held by such sister churches, as they 
professedly and sincerely regard as churches of Christ. But 

raul wholly repudiates those divisions grounded on diversity of 

I - I ■ -i - 1 _^ 

• Titus 3: 10. 



1838.] Dr. Schmucker'i ApptaL 9S 

sentimenty which would render it possible for a brother Chris- 
tian, when ejected from one portion of the Saviour's church to 
find admission to another. At all events, the church in his day 
was not thus divided, and those whose excommunication he en- 
joined, must in his judgment have forfeited ail claim to the 
christian profession. The apostles's rule, therefore, as limited 
by himself, would be that we ought not to separate from our 
brethren, for any error which we believe them to entertain, and 
which does not in our most conscientious judgment deprive 
them of all claim to the character of Christians. 

The primitive import of the Greek word ttiQimg (heresy) is 
MtUdiony choice. Thus it is used by many ancient Greek wri- 
ters. The following passage of Aeschines Socrat. (Dial. II. 3,) 
amounts, if not to a definition, yet to the most appropriate ex- 
emplification of this sense of the term : «/ 6i tig aoi didoitj ui-- 
Qia&v TOVToJy, Ttdtegov iv povkoio , In this sense we also meet 
it in the Septuagint ; (Lev. 27 : 18 and 21,) as equivalent to 
n^n: free will, voluntarily. It is also employed to designate a _pe- 
culiar kind cf discipline or mode of livings that has been vol- 
untarily assumed. But its more common signification* b schism, 
division, sect. Thus Dionys. Halic. (£p. I. ad Ammaeum. 
c. 7.) says of Aristotle: He was not the leader or head of a 
school, nor did he form a sect of hb own (ovte axoXiig i^yovft^ 
9og, ofs' idictv mnoitjxmg aipiaiv.) It is used by classic writers 
to designate the several philosophic sects, the Stoics, the Epi- 
cureans, the Peripatetics, etc. It occurs nine times in the New 
Testament and in the majority of cases it is translated sect in 
the common version. In the other cases it might with equal 
propriety be rendered in the same way,t as indeed it is by 
many distinguished translators. In its primitive and most cur- 
rent signification, therefore, the word {aigeaig) conveys no re- 
proach. It is used to designate the sect of Pharisees,]: the sect 

* Rosen mUller defines at^&r^g thus : ^'A^Qtfrsoig vox, per se media 
eat. Ubi in malam partem sumitur sigoificat idem quod ax^t*^* ^d 
restriogitur ad ea diesidea quae fiunt ex opinionum diversitate. 

t 3 Pet 2: 1. 1 Cor. 11: 9. 

I Acts 15: 5: But there rose up certain of the sect (a^wiq) of the 
Pharisees, who believed saying, that it was needful to circumcise 
them, and lo command them to keep the law of Moses. Acta 25: 6 : 
The Jews knew me firom the beginning if they would testify, that af- 
ter the most straitest std {oitQWHi) of our religion, I lived a Pharisee. 



94 Dr. Schmucker^s Appeal. [Jan. 

of Sadducees,* and the sect of the Nazarenes orChristians.f In 
all the passages where it is rendered sect, in the common ver- 
sion, it signifies a party of persons who have separated them- 
selves from others professedly pursuing the same end, over 
whom they profess to have some advantages. Here we have 
sects substantially corresponding to those of our days, sects based 
not on geographical lines, but on doctrinal diversities like our 
own, and yet what does Paul say concerning such sects in the 
church of Christ ? Using the very same word by which he 
designated the sect of the Pharisees, (in an adjective form,) he 
declares : Him that is a sectarian man (^algttMov Sv^gmnov) 
an originator or supporter of sects in the christian church, after 
the first and second admonition, reject, exclude from your com- 
munion and intercourse, avoid. Here we have the apostle again 
distinctly condemning the formation of sects in the christian 
church, using the very identical term by which the Pharisees 
and Sadducees are designated in the New Testament and the 
several sects of their philosophers by classic Greeks. 

Again, in the third chapter of his first epistle to the Gorin- 
thians,:^ Paul denounces such divisions in the christian church 
as "carnal.'* "For, (says he) whereas there is among you 
envying and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk 
as men ? For while one saith I am of Paul, and another I am 
of Apollos, are ye not carnal V^ How then can divisions es- 
sentially similar, among modem Christians, be pleasing in the 
sight of God ? In his letter to the Galatians,^ this same apos- 
tle classes these heresies or divisions among " the works of the 
fieshJ^ He beseeches the Romans,|| to " mark, (a%ontlv) at- 
tentively to observe, or watch those, " who cause divisions and 
offences, contrary to the doctrine (or rather the instruction or 
advice) which ye have learned : and avoid them." But it 
would be an endless work to present all the passages, in which 
the sacred volume inculcates the unity of the church, and de- 
precates its disruption into sects. Let one other passage termi- 
nate this branch of our argument. To the same Corinthians,ir 

* Acts 5: 17 : Then the high priest rose up and all they that were 
with him, which is the stet (aHqwig) of the Sadducees. 

t Acts 94:5, 14. 28: 33. t T.St 4. 

§Gfti.5:20: The works of the flesh are — wrath, strife, bereqri or 
Moti, divisions. 

I 16:17. f 19:12. 



1888.] Dr. Schmucker^s Appeal. 96 

he says : '* For as the body is one, and hath many members, 
and aJl the members of that one body, being many, are one 
body ; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptiz- 
ed into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether 
we be bond or free ; and have been all made to drink into one 
Spirit. For the body is not one member but many. — Now 
they are many members, yet but one body — ^That there should 
be no schism in tlie body ; but that the members should have 
the same care one for another."* It would seem then to be 
kresistibly evident, that tbe unity of the church ought to be sa- 
credly preserved by all who love the Lord Jesus ; and without 
stopping, at this stage of our investigation, to ascertain all the 
precise features of this unity, which will hereafter appear ; it is 
evident that the union inculcated by the apostle, is such, as is 
inconsistent with the divisions which he reprobates, and such 
divisions substantially are those of the present day, which are 
all based on some difference of doctrine, forms of government, 
or mode of worship among acknowledged Christians. 

But the obligation of Christians to preserve the unity of tbe 
church, is evident from the example of the apostles^ of the 
apostoUc and subsequent age. 

It would be superfluous to affirm, that no one of the apostles, 
or their fellow laborers established any sects in the christian 
church. The bare supposition of the contrary is absurd and 
revolting to every mind acquainted with the inspired record. 
Yet what ample ground was there for such a course, if it had 
been regarded lawful? There was diflerence of opinion among 
the apostles, and dLSerence among the first Christians : but 
neither was regarded as a cause for schism or division in the 
church. Paul differed from Peter and disapproved of his con* 
duct so much that (he says^ '^ at Antioch I withstood him to 
the face^ for he was to oe blamed :"f yet neither of them 
dreamed of forming a sect for the defence and propagation of 
his distinctive views. Paul and Barnabas differed about their 
arrangements for missionary operations, and when the conten- 
tion grew sharp, each took as fellow laborers those whom he 
preferred, and thus prosecuted the work ; but it never entered 
mto their minds to form different sects in the church. In the 
apostolic age there existed differences of opinion and practice 
between the Jewish and Gentile converts, far greater than those 



t^mmmt-'rm^m^rm^r^m^i^mmmm^mmmm.^i^^.mmi^mmmmmm^^i^mfmmammmm^ 



« See also Eph. 4 : 3-$. t O^ ^ ll-^U* 



96 Dr. Schmucker't Jfypeal. [J Air. 

which divide some of the religious denominations of our land, 
(the former enjoining circumcision* and other ceremonial ob- 
servances) ;t yet they did not divide the church into different 
sects under the guidance of the apostles. On tlie contrary 
the apostle enjoined mutual forbearance. '' One man (says 
Paul) esteemeth one day above another : another esteemeth 
every day alike. Lict every man be fully persuaded in his own 
mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord ; 
and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not re- 
gard it — ^But why dost thou judge (condemn) thy brother ? or 
why dost thou set at nought (despise) thy brother ? for we 
shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.]: Nor did 
any schism actually arise from these difierences till the apostles 
had gone to their rest, when in direct opposition to this advice, 
the Nazaraeans, in the reign of Adrian, separated from the body 
of Christians, who however strongly disapproved of their con- 
duct. It is certam too that during several hundred years, there 
continued to be persons in the church, who exhibited a linger- 
ing attachment to the Mosaic ceremonial observances, yet they 
were not excluded nor advised to form themselves into a sepa- 
rate sect. The observance of the Lord's day or christian Sab- 
bath was universal ;^ but some Christians during several cen- 



t. 



* Acts 15 : 5. 

f Qk\. 4:10: Ye observe days and months and times and yeanu 
I am afraid, etc 

t Romans 14 : 5—10. 

$ On the subject of the primitive sanctification of the first day of 
the week as the christian Sabbath it may not be uninteresting to ad- 
duce the testimony of Justin Martyr, who was born three or four 
years after the death of the apostle John, in his Apology for the Chris- 
tians, presented to Antoninus Pius, A. D. 150. He says : ** On the day 
which is called Sunday, all whether dwelling in the towns, or in the * 
villages, hold meetings, and the memoirs ^AnoftrtifiopBVfuna) of the 
apostles and the writings of the prophets are read as much as the 
time will permit ; then the reader closing, the person presiding, in a 
speech exhorts and excites to an imitation of those excellent exam- 
ples ; then we all rise and pour forth united prayers, and when we 
close our prayers, as was before said, bread is brought forward, and 
wine and water; and the presiding officer utters prayers and thanks- 
givings according to his ability (ooij dvpifiig ivif) and the people re- 
spond by saying Amen. A distribution and participatioB of the things 
blessed, takes place to each one present, and to thoee absent it is sent 



1888.] Dr. SchmucJctr^i Appeal. 97 

turies continued also to observe the Jewish Sabbath as a sacred 
day. The time for the observance of Easter was another point 
of difierence and even of warm controversy ; yet excepting some 
intolerant individuals neither party seriously thought of divid* 
ing the church or disowning their brethren on this ground.^ 
Had these differences existed in our time, who can doubt not 
only that separate sects would have grown out of them but that 
their formation would be approved by Christians generally ? 
Nay is not this question decided by facts ? Is there not a sect 
of some extent in our land, the Seventh Day Baptists, who dif- 



by the deaconi. Thofle who are prosperous and willing, give what 
they choose, each according to his own pleasure ; and what is collect- 
ed 18 deposited with the presiding officer, and he carefully relieves 
the orphans and widows, and those who from sickness or other causes 
are needy, and also those that are in prison, and the strangers that are 
residing with us, and in short all that have need of help. fFe edl com*- 
mordy hold our assemblies on Sunday, because U is the first day on 
whieh God changed the darkness and matter and framed the world ; and 
Jesus Christ our Saviour, on the same day, arose from the dead.^ Mur- 
dock's Mos. I. p. 164 — 5. 

* The testimony of Eusebius on this point is very satisfactory. 
He says (Book V. chap. 23,) '* there was a considerable discussion rais- 
ed about this time in consequence of a difierence of opinion respect- 
ing the observance of the festival (of the Saviour's) passover." — After 
narrating the history of this discussion and the efforts of Victor, bish- 
op of Rome, to break communion with those who differed from him, 
Eusebius quotes an extract from n letter written by Irenaeus to Victor 
to persuade him to peace. ^ And though (says Irenaeus to Victor) 
they (the earlier bishops) themselves did not keep it, they were not 
the less at peace with those from churches where it was kept, when- 
ever they came to them. — JSTeither at any time did they cast off any^ 
merely for the sake of form. But those very presbyters before thee, 
who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of churches who 
did. And when the blessed Polycarp went to Rome, in the time of 
Anicetus, and they had a liule difi^^rence . among themselves, about 
other matters also, they were immediately reconciled, not disputing 
much with one another on this head. For Anicetus could not per- 
suade Polycarp not to observe it ; because he had always observed it 
with John, the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with 
whom he associated. — Which things lieing HO,Mey communed together^ 
and in the church Aolcetiis yielded to Polycarp : they separated from 
each other in peace, all the church being at peace, both those that ob- 
serve and those that did not observe, maintaining the peace.** Euseb. 
Book V. chap. 24. 

Vol. XI. No. «9. 13 



96 Dr. Sckmuektr^i jfypeaL [Jah. 

fer from other baptbts only in regard to the time of obBerying 
the christian Sabbath ; they believing that the seventh day con* 
tinues to be the proper one under the New Testament dispensa- 
tion, as it was under the Old ? But in the apostolic churches 
it was different. There all who were regarded as Christians 
and lived in the same pkce, also belonged to the same church, 
and worshipped together, agreeing to diflfer in peace on minor 
points, and remembering that no Christian has a right to judge, 
that is to condemn his brother Christian on account of his con- 
scientious difference of opbion. Each one was to be fuUy per- 
suaded in his own mind, and prepare to stand with his brother 
before the judgment seat of Christ. Neither was to sit in judg- 
ment on the other, Christ was to judge both ; and until his final 
award their differences were to be borne in love. 

Let it be borne in mind, then, that in the apostolic age, when 
the church was governed by inspired servants of God, and for 
some time after, there was not in the whole christian world anv 
such thing as different sects of acknowledged Christians. All 
who professed to be Christians, and resided in the same place» 
belonged to the same church. And if, as was probably the 
case in large cities, they met at different houses for worship, 
they nevertheless all regarded each other as members of the 
same church or congregation ; they all frequently communed 
together, and the reason of different places for meeting, was 
not diversity of opinions among them, but because private 
bouses in which they assembled, having had no churches till the 
third century,* could not contain them all. Heretics there 
were, who denied some essential doctrines of Christianity. 
These were excluded from the church in which they had 
resided, and were then disowned by all other christian church- 
es* But different sects of Christians, acknowledging each other 
as Christians, yet separated on the ground of diversity of opin- 
ioos, such as the different denominations of Protestants are, had 
no existence, and were utterly unknown in the apostolic age ; 
nor was the great body of the church ever thus cut up, in her 
purest day during the earlier centuries. We read of the church 
at Corinth, the church at Ephesus, the church in Rome, the 
church in Smyrna, the church in Thyatira, the church in Phil- 

* The houses for christian worship were erected during the reign 
of Alexander Severus between A. D. 222 — 235: yet Vater supposes 
them to have existed at the close of the 2d century. 



1688.] ])r. Sdmwiker'MJppeal. 99 

adelphia, the church in Jerusalem^ the church at Philippi, and 
in many other places ; but never of the Pauline church in Cor- 
iathy nor of the church that follows Apollos, nor of the church 
of Gentile converts, nor of the church of Jewish converts, nor of 
the church that retains the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, nor 
of the church that does not. In short Christiant in those days 
were called Christians and nothing but Christians ; and one 
christian church was distinguished from another only by the 
name of the place in which it was located. This ought certain- 
ly to be a ioiemn ftct to those, who have taken it for granted, 
that sectarian divisions of the church are right, that they were 
dcing Grod service by their utmost eflbrts to perpetuate them, 
bv inscribmg on the tender and infant mind the lineaments of 
their denominational peculiarity. One thing does appear unde- 
niable. If the sectarian form of Christianity be its best mode 
of development, the blessed Saviour himself — with reverence 
be it spoken ! — the Saviour and his apostles failed to give it 
their injunction ; on the contrary, enjoined and practised direct- 
ly the reverse ! ! The writer does not from these &cts infer 
the obligation of Christians immediately to renounce their pres- 
ent organizations and all merge into one church. Difficulties 
now exist arismg from honest diversity of views on church gov- 
ernment, which did not exist in the apostolic age, and which render 
it impossible for persons thus differing to unite geographically ; 
but the essence of christian union may exist, and ought to be 
promoted immediately, as will be seen in a subsequent stage of 
this discussion. As to a union of all the churches of the land 
in one compact ecclesiastical system of judicature, such a one 
did not exist in the apostolic age, is undesirable, and dangerous. 

But the importance of unity in the body of Christ, and the 
duty of promoting it is further demonstrated by the banefid effects 
ofiectarian dwisiant. 

Sectarian divisions, divisions on the ground of difference^ tend 
to destroy that commmiiy of interest, and sympathy of feeling 
which the Saviour and his apostles so urgently inculcate. How 
fervendy does our blessed Lord supplicate for the unitv of all 
his followers ! <' Neither pray I for these (the apostles) alone, 
but for them also who shall believe on me through their word ; 
that they may all be one, as thou Father art in roe and I in 
thee"* — that there may be among them that unity of counsel^ 



• John 17: 90, dl. 






100 Dr. Schmucker^s Appeal. [Jan* 

of feeling, of purpose, of action which exists between the Father 
and the Son. What can be more reasonable ? If all his dis- 
ciples, all who *^ believe in him through the word," are hereaf- 
ter to inhabit the same heaven, to surround the same throne of 
God and the Lamb ; would not the principle of sectarian di' 
visions carry discord into those harmonious ranks, and mar their 
heavenly hallelujahs and grate upon the ears of angels and the 
Lamb ! No ! sectarianism is an acknowledged and — alas that 
it should be so— a cherished trait of the church on earth, which 
will never, never be admitted into heaven^ And who can 
doubt that the nearer we can bring the church on earth to the 
character of the church in heaven, the more pleasing will she 
be to him that purchased her with his blood. Accordingly 
Paul informs us : '' That there should be no schism in the body ; 
but that the members should have the Mome care one for a»- 
other ;^ and if one member suffer, all the members suffer with 
it, or if one member be honored, all the members rejoice with 
it." But, gracious Lord ! is not directly the reverse of this but 
too frequency witnessed ? Does not the great mass of the sev- 
eral religious denominations of our land, exhibit any thing else 
than " the same care," for the other members of Christ's body ? 
If one denomination suffers, fails of success or meets with dis- 
grace in some unworthy members, do not surrounding denomi- 
nations rather at least tacitly and cheerfully acquiesce if not re- 
joice, hoping that thus more room will be made and facility 
offered ior their own enlargement ? We do not find that mem- 
bers of the same family thus cordially acquiesce or triumph in 
each others* misfortune or disgrace. If one brother is visited 
by any calamity, if he falls a victim to intemperance and bears 
about in his bloated face the ensign of his disgrace, do we 
find his brothers and sisters rejoice in it ? Do they not rather 
sympathize, feel hurt themselves, and mourn over his downfall ? 
Thus ought it to be among all who deserve the name of Christ. 
Thus would it be, if the community of interest in the Saviour's 
family had not been impaired by sectarian divisions which place 
several distinct religious families on the same ground, with 
separate pecuniary interests, with conflicting prejudices, with ri- 
val sectarian aims ! In the apostolic age and for centuries after 
it, only one christian church occupied the same field, and thus 
three fourths of the causes which originate contention among 



• I Cor. 12:25. 



1838.] Dr. Schmucker'i Appeal. 101 

modem Ckriiiiani votrt avinded. These separate interests, 
will always create contention, rivalry and jealousies among fal- 
lible men, sanctified but in part, as long as they are not re- 
moved or their influence in some way counteracted. And, as 
they did not belong to the church constituted by the Saviour 
and his apostles, the solemn duty devolves on all Christians 
to inquire, how can this evil be remedied ? 

Again, sectarian divisions of the church impede the inrnar" 
iial study of the sacred volume by ministers ana laymen. The 
doctrines believed by what are termed the orthodox churches, 
as well as their forms of government and worship, may be di- 
^ded into two classes, those which are undisputed and held by 
all in common, and those which are disputed by some of them, 
and which distinguish the sects iirom each other. The sectari* 
an principle builds a wall of defence around the peculiar opin- 
ions of each sect.^ It enlists all Christians in defence of the pe- 
culiarities of their denomination, and creates powerful motives 
of a self-mterested and unholy character in vindication of these 
peculiarities, rather than of the grand truths of Christianity, 
which are essential to the salvation of all; motives which 
appeal to the pride of some, to the avarice of others, and to the 
ambition of a third class. Each member is taught by the very 
principles of his sinful nature to feel identified with the peculiar 
interests of hb sect. His vanity is flattered by the supposed 
sespectability of his sect, his ambition is at least tempted by the 
prospect of extended influence or distinction in the mmistry or 
as a layman in the ecclesiastical councils of his extensive ana re- 
spectcMe church, and his avarice is concerned in diminishing his 
own expenses by the increasing numbers of his fellow-members^ 
or, if a mmister, by the ample support which he may obtain. 
We would not msinuate that all Christians are influenced by 
these unamiable motives, nor that any true disciple of the Sa- 
viour is mainly actuated by them. But we fear that the ma- 
jority of professors in the church, are more influenced by these 
secular considerations, than they are themselves aware. Ac- 
cordingly, the peculiarities of sect acquire a factitious impor* 
tance, are often inculcated with as much assiduity as the great 
and cardinal doctrines of the gospel. Endless and useless con- 
troversies about these pomts agitate the church, and disturb her 
peace. These peculiarities are instilled into the tender minds 
of children, and are often represented as involving the marrow 
of salvation. Prejudiccsi are rais^ in their behalf. The tenets 



102 Dr. Sekmudcer^i Appeal [Jak. 

of other deoominations are often kept out of vieWy or stated in a 
manner but ill calculated for an impartial investigation of God's 
truth. The antipathies of the social circle are sometimes ar- 
rayed in opposition, and, may I say, sometimes in ridicule of 
other denominations ;, and even the gender sex, sisters of her 
of Bethany, who, sitting at the Master's feet, imbibed the 
streams of his love ; sisters of them, who, true to their affectioa, 

" Were last at the cross^ 
And earliest at the grave,** 

have hated that Saviour in the person of his folbwers, because 
they wore not the badge of their sect ! have forgotten that thm 
religion is love, — ^that charity, divine charity is the brightest or* 
nament of their nature ! Under such circumstances, doubts of 
the sectarian peculiarities inculcated, would expose the ingenuous 
youth who should avow them, to social inconveniences, to paren* 
tal disapprobation, and rarely does he enjoy amfde oportunity 
for impartial investigation, before aduh age. The fact that al- 
most invariably, young persons adopt and prefer the peculiar 
sectarian views of their parents, is a demonstrative proof thai 
their preference is not buUt on argument, that the mode of re- 
ligious education in the different churches is unfavorable to im- 
partial investigation. The simple circumstance of parental be- 
lief, is assuredly no satisfactory proof of the creed which we 
adopt on account of it. For the same reason, we would have 
been Mohammedans, if bom in Turkey, PapiBts in Italy, and 
worshippers of the Grand Lama in Thibet. And ministers of 
the gospel have still greater obstacles to surmount, as their dis- 
belief of the peculiarities of their sect tarnishes their reputatioo 
with their associates, yea, not unfrequently excludes them from 
their pastoral charge, and their families from daily bread ! Is 
it not evident, then, that the state of the christian church 
amongst us is unfitvorable to the impartial study of the volume 
of divine truth ? 

> Lastly, the principle of sectarian divisions jpot^er/icffy retards 
the spiriiual conquests of Christianity over the world. Who 
that knows aught of the divine life, can doubt, that in propor- 
tion as he permits pride, envy, jealousy, hatred to arise in his 
heart, the spirit of piety languishes, his graces decline and his 
sense of the divine presence is impaired ? But sectarianism, by 
which m this discussion we generally mean the principle of di- 
visions on the ground of <&fferenoe, in nonessentials among thoee 



1888.] JOr. SAmiiek$r^$ ,^fp0at. 108 

wko pPDibtt IQ regard eaeb other as fellow ChrktiaDSy seclariBD« 
hm indubitaUj creates varioas conflictiiig bterests, presents du» 
meroas occasioDs and temptations to enrv, hatred, jealousy, sfain- 
der, and creates an atmosphere around the Christian, in which 
Che flame of piety cannot bum with lustre, and not unfrequently 
expires« 

What observer of tran^iring scenes can doubt, that the sec- 
tarian strife and animosity between the churches, deter many 
sinners from makbg religion the subject of their chief concern 
and from being converted to God ? The Saviour prayed : That 
they afl may be erne, as thou Father art in me and I in thee ; that 
they may also be one in us ; that the world may believe that 
Aau hast sent me." Here then, the Saviour himself informs 
us what influence unity among his -followers was designed to 
«Act ; history tells that when surrounding heathen were con- 
strained to say *^ see how these Christians love one another,'' 
the moral influence of their example was amazbg : and who 
can doubt that inverse causes produce inverse effects. 

How often does not the principle of sect, exclude the Ues- 
sed Saviour from our villages and sparsely populated sections of 
country, in which united Christians might support the gos- 
pel ; but cut up into jealous and disc<mant sects, and bating 
one another as though each believed a differ^st Christ, all re- 
main destitute of the stated means of grace 1 The occasional 
vMbs of ministers of different sects serve to confirm each party 
in its own predileedons, and thus we often witness the melan- 
oboiy spectacle of the Savioitf excluded from such places by 
the dissensions of his professed friends, and sinners slmc out 
from the sMcCQary of God because saints cannot agree whether 
PiMil or Apollos or Cephas shall minister unto them. 

Nor is the principle of sect, less unfriendly to the spread of 
the gospel in heathen lands. By often stationing on the same 
gioimd at home, more men than are necessary, or can be sup- 
ported, laborers are improperly withdrawn from the destitute 
portions of the field, which is ^' the world ;" conflicting inter- 
ests unavoidably arise among the ministers and churches thus 
crowded togetlMM*; as fdl cannot long continue, a struggle fcr 
existence is caarried on, more or less openly, «Lnd with different 
degrees of violence, until the feilure of one or more drives them 
from the field, and makes room for the others. Nor is this coo* 
fiict to be attributed so much to the want of piety in the parties, 
as to that actual conflict of interests which unavoidaUy results 



104 Dr. Schmuek^sJlppeal. 1888.] 

from the influence of sects. But certainly eyeiy true CbiistiaQ 
must deplore this state of things, and it is the writer's deliberate 
conviction, that one of the bitterest ingredients in the cup of 
ministerial sorrow^ in many portions of our land, is this unholy 
and unhappy strife among brothers. In short it is a solemn and 
mournful truth, that sectarianism, the principle of sect, in a 
great measure changes the directi(»i in which the energies of 
the church are applied, transfers the seat of war from pagan 
to christian lands, from the territc^ of Christ's enemies into 
the very family of his friends ! In the beginning the church 
of the Redeemer at peace at home, directed all her surplus en- 
ergies against the world around her and the world of Jews and 
Gentiles in foreign lands. The war was waged not by one 
portion of Christ's family against another, but empha^ally 
and distinctly by the church against the world ; such was the 
almighty force of the spiritual artillery wielded in this holy war, 
that m about three hundred years the little band of fishermen 
and tentmakers, fought their way to the utmost bounds of the 
Roman empire, and the banner of king Jesus, which was first 
unfiirled in the valleys of Judea, was waving in triumph o'er 
the palace of the Caesars. But who can deuy, that a large por- 
tion of the energies of christian sects is now expended in con- 
tending With each other, in building up walls of partition, in for- 
tifying and defending those peculiar views by which they are 
kept asunder ? The war is no longer a foreign, it is an intes- 
tine one. How large a portion of the periodical literature of 
the day is occupied in these fiimily feuds, and consists of mere 
'' doubtfiil disputations !" How large a portion of ministerial 
talent is placed in requisition to sustain this conflict ? How 
many precious hours of time are thus applied ? If all the time 
and talent and effort spent by the orthoidox protestant churches 
in disputing with one another about the points of their dififer- 
ence, since the blessed Reformation, had been devoted to the 
projects of benevolent enterprise for the unconverted heathen 
world, who can calculate the progress that might have been 
made in evangelizing the gentile nations ? Let every true dis- 
ciple of the Saviour inquire, why do 600 millions of our fellow 
men languish in the shadows of death eighteen hundred years 
after the blessed gospel has been entrusted to christian hands 
for them ? Four and fifty times has the entire population of 
the globe been swept into eternity, since the Saviour commis- 
sioned his disciples to publish the glad tidings to every crea- 



1888.] Dr. Schiuudcer's Appeal. 105 

tuie. Who that has witnessed the prompt and overwhehning 
blessing of God on the eSoits of the little band of Christians in 
Europe and America during the last thirty years ; who that has 
seen a natioD new-created almost in a day in the isles of the 
Pacific, and witnessed the standard of the cross erected in Af- 
rica, in GhreecCy in Turkey, in Hindoostan, in Ceylon, in China 
and many other places ; and the glorious gospel of the Son of 
God translated into about one hundred and fifty languages; who 
that reflects on the millions of Bibles and the tens of millions of 
tracts which the united bands of liberal minded Christians have 
sent forth, can doubt that if the christian church had not be- 
come secularized by the unhappy union with the civil govern- 
ment under Constantino in the fourth century, the world had 
long ago been evangelized. Or if the Protestant church had 
not been split into so many parties by adopting the new, and 
we must believe unauthorized and pernicious doctrine, that they 
had a BIGHT to adopt for themselves and require of others as 
terms of communion, not only the fundamental doctrines which 
were required in the earlier Centuries and were supposed suf- 
ficient far hundreds of years after the apostolic age, but also as 
many additional and disputed points as they pleased^ thus di- 
viding the body of Christ and creating internal dissensions ; who 
that is acquainted with her history can doubt that greater, far 
greater, inroads would have been made into the dominions of 
the papal beast, and the glorious gospel of the Son of God, in 
the three centuries since the Reformation, have been carried 
to the ends of the earth. 

Such then being the mournful consequences of that disunion 
against which the Saviour and his apostles so urgently admon- 
bhed their followers, we feel with double force, that the church 
has been guilty of suicidal error, and that it is the solemn duty 
of every fiiiend of Jesus, sincerely to inquire. Lord what wouldst 
thou have me do to bed the wounds of thy dismembered body ! 

Deeply impressed with the conviction, that the blessed Sa- 
viour and his apostles have explicitly inhibited the division of 
the body of Christ into sectarian parties or Actions, and fully 
persuaded that these divisions which exist among Protestants 
generally, at hast with their present concomitantsy are highly 
prejudicial to the prosperity of Zion ; let us approach the in- 
quii^, what is the more tmmediate and specific nature of that 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 14 



106 Dr. Sehmucker^s Appeal. [Jak* 

union, which characterized the primitive churchy and which it 
is obligatory on us to promote. As Protestants, who are ready 
to exclaim with Chilliogworth, « the B^le, the Bible'' is the 
only infallible source of our religion, we must naturally turn our 
eyes to its sacred pages ; nor can we with safety rely on the 
practice of the church in any subsequent age, except in so far 
as it accords with apostolical example, or at least is a manifest 
development of principles clearly inculcated in the gospel. It 
is indeed worthy of remark, that we know next to nothing of 
the history of the christian church during more than a hundred 
years after its first establishment^ except what is contained in 
the New Testament. This has often been regretted by men ; 
but God has doubdess designedly enveloped that early period 
of her uninspired history in darkness, to compel us to rest en- 
tirely on his own infallible word, and to draw a clear and broad 
litie of distinction between the authority of his inspired servants 
and that of the fathers of the church in after ages. The histo- 
ry and practice of the earlier ages when known, may affi>rd an 
occasional illustration of our subject; yet, as protestants, wecan 
acknowledge nothing as essential to the character of the church, 
or the duties of her members, which is not distinctly contained 
in the sacred volume. 

It is certain, that this union did not consist in any compact 
ecclesiastical organization of the entire church in a nation or 
empire under one supreme judicatory . 

Excepting an occasional interposition of apostoUcal authority, 
we are informed, that each church attended to its own affairs of 
government and discipline. Addressing the Corinthians,* Paul 
says " Do not ye judge (xglvsie) them that are within ? There- 
fore put ye away (/£a()ar«) from among yourselves tliat wick- 
ed person ;" manifestly attributing to the Corinthians the right 
to discipline and exclude an unworthy member from their body. 
The same right of supervision and discipline over her members, 
is attributed to each individual church by the Saviour himself :f 
'^ If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault 
between thee and him alone" — and eventually, if other means 
should fail, '^ tell it to the church" Nor do we find in either 
of these cases any ultimate reference to a judicatory consisting 
of representatives firom several, much less from all other chris- 

* 1 Cor. 5: 12. f Matt. 18: 15 — 17. See also 2 Cor. 2: 7. 



1838.] Dr. SchfMickef^s Appeal. 107 

tian churches. The phraseology* of the New Testament evi- 
dently implies, that each church was a distinct and complete 
church and a member of the body of Christ. It is however 
equally certain, that the New Testament presents in addition to 
several minor consultations, one example of a council or synod^f 
whose members were ^^ the apostles, elders (that is, preachers), 
and brethren (that is, lay members)," and who assembled at 
Jerusalem ibr the purpose of settling a dispute touching the ob- 
ligation of christian converts to observe ^^ the law of Moses, etc.'' 
This synod was convened for a special purpose, was a pro re 
nata convention, and although it fully sanctions the call of such 
meetings as often as necessary, and justifies a provision for sta- 
ted meetings if experience establishes their necessity and utility ; 
yet it cannot with any plausibility be aUeged, that the churches 
were then regularly united into such synods, or that such meet- 
ings were held regularly, at fixed times. Had they been of an- 
nual recurrence, who can doubt that some trace of the fact, or 
allusion to it, would be found in the Acts of the apostles or the 
epistles of Paul, which cover a period of about thirty years, and 
narrate or allude to the prominent events in the history of the 
church during that period ? These &cts urge upon our atten- 
tion several important positions, the value of which will be more 
evident in the sequel. They are these : 

a) TJiot the dtvine Head of the church has irUnuted the 
^reai man of the duties and privileges of his kingdom to the 
tndividual churches in their primary capacity. Hence, though 
the churches ought to take counsel with each other, and for 
this purpose may have stated fneetingSy and constitute regular 
synods^ they should not suffer any encroachments on their rights, 
nor permit too much of their business to be transacted by these 
dekgated associations or presbyteries or synods. The neglect 
of tnis caution gradually robbed the churches of their rights 
and liberties in past ages, and fostered that incubus of Christiani- 
ty, tbepapal hierarchy at Rome. 

b) The duty of fraternal consultation and union of counsel 
ought not to be neglected by the church in the discharge of 
her duties. This pnnciple evidently afibrds sanction to the va- 
rious associations among the churches such as presbyteries, sy- 

•Oal. 1:3. 1 Cor. 16:1. 2 Cor. 8: 1. 1 Then. 3: 14. Acts. 9: 3K 
15c 41. 

t Acts XV. 



106 Dr. SchmuekerU Appetd. [JAif* 

nods, etc., for the purposes of mutual counsiel, encouragement 
and cooperation in the performance of such duties as can best 
be accomplished hj conjunction of means and efforts. Tet the 
history of past ages distinctly admonishes us to beware of the 
natural tendency to consolidation in church as well as State. 
There is doubtless danger of the concentration of power in the 
hands of ecclesiastical judicatories, which has in former ages, 
alas ! been but too frequentiy abused to purposes of oppression 
and bloodshed, to the destruction of liberty of conscience, and 
the obstruction of the Redeemer's spiritual kingdom. It ap- 
pears inexpedient for the churches to devolve on their delega- 
ted judicatories, such duties as they can perform as well in 
their primary capacity for another reason ; because, when du- 
ties 01 various kinds are accumulated on any individual bodies, 
they must necessarily be less able to discharge them all with 
efficiency. 

It is evident then, that in the apostolic age, the unity of the 
church did not consist in a compact conjunction of all her parts 
in an ecclesiastical judicatory. On the contrary, we have no 
accounts of any synods or councils after that age, until the lat- 
ter part of the second century. Eusebius, the earliest author 
by whom the transactions of these councils are recorded, uses 
the following language, from which it is highly probable that'such 
councils were nothing new, and that similar ones had been occa- 
sionally held during the previous seventy-five years which had 
intervened since the death of the last apostie :* " About this 
time appeared Novams, a presbyter of the church of Rome, 
and a man elated with haughtiness agdnst those (that had fall- 

* EuBob. Book 6. chapter 43. 'j&rci^ nt^ t^ mna Tovrisr agMs 
vmori^apla Noovaxog inc 'Pomakȴ htftXiifflaf noHrSvuoofj ig iKrptkt 
oCoiK alndif nmnqlaq iknidog, iirfi d nivxa id ^ ht^^oq^t yPn^ktr 
ual xa&agity i^ofiolopitrit inixtloUif^ idlag aloitnoig j&p xati lo/urfiov 
awrUwof Ka&oQOvg iavtovg inwprpfmnwp^ af^xyt/oq itu^Urttnw, up 
^ ffwodov (uyhifig inl *Plifn^ irvpcQwtfi&tUnig, k^nona fABv tor iifi&^ 
flit inifntinwf^ nXtiovwf d§ bu ftalXov nq&ipviiqwf %z wal dwaw¥W9^ 
Idimq %9 WKta %aq hitniq ina(fxUiS twv natit /oi^ay noi^iay ntQl tov 
nQctxnov dtamu^afihtup, doyfia naqUrtaxai xdiq nwrt * Toy fjth IVoovo- 
Tor tf/Mt xfili a\n& owsaaq&iUn^ toitq t« avrtvdoMUP t^ fiuretdiXtptu ical 
inardQWifnatri yvmfvfi %ayi(fog ngoaigopvirovg, iv aXloxqloiq t^; itofXi^ 
^ias ffyBur&a* ' roitg di t^ frv(tq>0Q^ ntginattrntoiag x&y idelq>Wf latr- 
^ai nal ^BQonBVHy tolg tt]( lixavoiag (pufffiaMis, Edit. Zimmermann, 
VoL I. p. 464, 465. 



1888.] Dr. Schmucker^s Appeal. 109 

en)y as if there were no room for them to hope (or salvation, 
not even if thev performed all things which belong to a genuine 
conversion, and a pure confession. He thus became the leader 
of the peculiar sect of those, who inflated by vain imaginations, 
called themselves Cathari. A very large council being held at 
Rome on this account, at which sixty bishops and a still great- 
er number of presbyters and deacons were present, and the pas* 
UMTS of the remaining provinces, having according to their loca- 
tion deliberated sepanttely what should be done ; thb decree 
was passed by all : That Novatus and those who so arrogantly 
united with Imn, and those that had chosen to adopt the unchar- 
itable and most inhuman opinion of the man, should be ranked 
among such as are aliens from the church (excluded) ; but that 
such of the brethren, as had fallen during the calamity (perse- 
cution), should be treated and healed with the remedies of re- 
pentance," 

This B the earliest account extant of any regular synod after 
the apostcdic age. The absence of even the least intimation, 
that this assembly was any thing novel, confers a high degree 
of probability on the supposition diat other similar meetings had 
oocesioDally occurred before. But it was not until the close of 
the second, or begbning of the third century, that these asso- 
ciations began to bold regular and itated meeiingi. This prac- 
tice was fint introduced m Greece, where the popular mind had 
been familiarized to such stated representative conventions, by 
the Ampbictionic Council, and would naturally be inclined to 
transfer to the church, what had proved so acceptable in State.* 
Still the introduction of regular stated meetmgs had to encoun- 
ter some opposition, for Tertullian, in the commencement of 
the third century, found it necessary to undertake their defence.f 
By the middle of the third century, however, these stated an- 
nual meetings had become very general.| Lay representatives 

* See Neander's Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I. p. 333. Tertallian's 
words are, ** Aguntur per Graeeias ilia eeHi§ m locis coocilia, ex uni- 
verBis ecciesiis, per quae et altiora quaeqne in commune traotaotur et 
ipsa repreeentatio totius nominis ChristiaDi magna veoeratione oele- 
bratur.** Be Jejuoiia, c. 13. 

t ** lata solennta, quibus tune praesene paunockiatus est Sermo.^— • 
TertuUian. 

t Cyprian, fip. 40. and FirmiHanua, (apud Cyprian. Ep. 75.) of 
Cappadocla : Neceasario apad Boa fit, ut per atngulos annoa aeoioNa 
et pmepeaiti 'In unum eooveniaaMis, ad diapooeoda «a quae cune 
noatrae commian aunt. Neander sup. cit p. 329. 



110 Dr» Sdmucket^s Appeal. [Jan. 

were at first admitted to these councils, as the ^^ brethren" evi- 
dently had been b the apostolic age ; but in process of time 
the bishops secured all this power to themselves.* These con- 
ventions were merely provincial, and embraced the churches of 
only one particular country or province. The entire christian 
church was not yet united by any supreme judicatory, having 
jurisdiction over all its parts, as eventuaUy occurred under the 
papal hierarchy ; but here we find for the first time a visible 
untan of all the acknowledged churches in aparticvlar coiw^ 
try under one ecdesiasticai judicatory. Sucn an extensive 
union in one judicatory, could not long fail to abridge freedom 
of investigation and liberty of conscience ; if its powers were 
not purely those of an advisory cauncUy and its advice confined 
to matters originatbg between the smaller judicatories and con- 
templadng their relation to each other, andf the progress of the 
church in general. 

Agam, the primitive unity of the church of Christ did not 
consist in the organization of the whole church on earth under 
one visible heady such as the pope at Home and the papal hie* 
rarchy. We shall not here stop to prove, that the power given 
alike by the Saviour to all the apostles,! could not confer any 
peculiar authority on Peter : nor that Peter's having professed 
the doctrine of the Saviour's Messiahship, on which the Lord 
founded his church, does not prove that he founded it on Peter 
himself, making him and his successors his vicars upon earth. 
It is admitted by aU Protestants that the pope is a creature as 
utterly unknown to the Bible as is the Grand Lama of the 
Tartars. It is well known, that the papal hierarchy is the 
gradual production of many centuries of corruption. In the 
third century the churches of a particular kmgdom or province, 
were united by provincial synods ; but it remained for the ar- 
dent Afirican bbhop Cyprian, after the middle of the third cen- 
tury, by an unhappy confiision of the visible with the invisible 
church, to develope in all its lineaments the theory of a neces- 

* Neaoder sap. cit. p. 334. 

t Matt 16: 19 : And I will give unto thee (Peter v. 18) the keys 
of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, 
shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
shall be loosed in heaven. Chap. 18: 1, 18 : At the same time came 
the disciples unto Jesus, etc. — He said— Verily I say unto you (disci- 
ples V. 1) whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in hea- 
ven : and wlnitsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. 



1838.] Dr. Schmueker^i Jfypeal. 1 1 1 

saiy visible udiod of the whole church on earth in one unifonn 
external organization, under a definite apostolic succession of 
bishopSy as the essential channel of the Spirit's influences on 
earth, transmitted by ordbaticm.* It is only under the influ- 
ence of this ccHifused theory, that enlightened and good men 
could believe in the impossibili^of salvation without the pales 
of their own visible church ! That such a man as Augustintj 
could advance the following sentiments in the official epistle of 
the Synod assembled at Cirra in the year 412 : Quisquis ab 
hac catholica ecclesia fuerit separatus, quantumlibet laudabiliter 
se vivere existimet, hoc solo scelerty quod a Christi unitate dis- 
junctus est, non habebit vitam, sed ira Dei tnanei super ipsum. 
Quisquis autem in ecclesia bene vixerit, nihil ei praejudicant 
aliena peccala, quia unusqtdsque in ea proprium onus portahity 
€t quicimqrue in ea corpus Christi tnanducaverit indigneyjudi^ 
cium sUn manducat et bibity quo satis ostendit apostolus, quia 
non aheri manducat sed n6t— communio malorum non maculat 
aliquem participadone sacramentorum, sed consensione £icto- 
rum.f And in his own work '* De fide et symbolo," written 
about twenty years earlier, he says :% ^^We believe that the 
church is both holy and universal (i. e. one). T%e heretics y 
hotoevery also denominate their congregations churches. But 
they, by entertaining false views concerning Ood, do violence 
to the christian faith : the schismatics on the other handy 
although they agree with us in doctrine, forsake brotherly love 
hy creating pernicious divisions.^* 

It is easily perceptible, how this erroneous idea of the neces- 
sary visible combination of all the churches under one organiza- 

* Neander's Kirehtogeschichte, Vol. I. p. 330, 331. 

t Fuch's Bibliotbok der KircbenversamraluogeD, Vol. III. p. 303. 
^ Whoever separates himself from this universal church, however 
praiseworthy be may suppose his general conduct to be, shall not 
obtain life on account of this crime ahrUy that he is separated from 
the unity of Christ, but the torath of God ahidtth on him. But who- 
ever leads an exemplary life In the church, shall not be injured by the 
sins of others, because in it (the church) everyone shall bear his own 
burden, and whoever eateth the body of Christ unworthily, shall eat 
and drink judgment to himself by which the apostle clearly sbows^ 
that as he eats not for another, but for himself*— it is not the commu- 
nion with the wicked in the reception of the sacraments, which con- 
taminates any one, but his aswnt to their evil deeds." 

t Koepler's Bibliothek der Kircbenvater, Vol. IV. p. 240. 



1 12 Dn Sehmucker's Appeal* [Jan. 

cion, as the supposed exclusive channel of the diTine inflnenee 
and favor, would naturally tend to jbcilitate the ultimate adop* 
tion of the papal hierarchy ; for here, and here alone, in the 
holy father, is to be found one visible, tangible head, adapted 
to the one universal visible church. That this opinion how- 
ever, was not that of the apostles or of the apostolic age, is 
confirmed by the concurrent testimony of all writers in the 
earlier centuries. On this subject an interesting testimony has 
reached us in the Apostolic Canons, so called because the work 
professes to be and m the main is a collection of the principal 
'Customs and regulations for the government, discipline, etc. of 
the christian church during the first four centuries from die days 
of the apostles. It was most probabhr compiled sh(»rtly after 
the time of Augustine, in the middle of the fifth centurv, and 
'clearly proves that the exclusive pretensions of the bishop of 
Rome were not acknowledged even at that time : It reads thus : 

Canon 33. J%e bishops of each nation should know the 
principal one among them^ and regard him as their head (loiv 
Jti taxoTioiv i%aatov i^vovg Mewai X9V ^^^ i* avtoiQ ngatov, mk2 
li/ifb&M €iviO¥ cJff *fq>€tXtip) and undertake nothing ofimpor* 
tance without his advice. But each one should himself attend 
to what belongs to his own church and neighborhood. But 
-even he ought to do nothing without consuUati^m ufith others 
(jilXa fifjde ixiipog a»€v ttig nuptmp fpwftfjg noustss r«). Herein 
consists the true unity (of the church), and such a course wiB 
tend to the glory of Qod through Jesus Qiristj in the Holy 
S^rU.'' 

In short it is well known, that the Inshop of Rome did not 
lobtain even the title of universal bishop until, in the seventh 
tsentury, ^^ Bonifiice HI. engaged Phocas, the Grecian EmpercNr, 
^ho waded to the throne through the blood of Mauritius, to 
take fix>m the bishop of Constantinople the title of oecumenical 
or universal bishop, and to confer it on the Roman pontiff." 
His dignity as a temporal prince he did not receive tdl in the 
eighth century, when the usurper Pq^n, in consideration of the 
aid afibrded him by the pontiff in treasonably dethroning hb 
predecessor, granted " the exarchate of Ravenna, and Penta* 
polls" to the Roman pontiff, and his successors in the pretended 
apostolic see of St. Peter. There can therefore be no question 
as to the truth of our position, that the primitive church was 
not united under one visible head, such as the pope and papal 
hierarchy. 



1838.] Dr. Schmutk^w Appeal 118 

Finally, it is certain that the unity of the primitive church 
did not consist in absolute unanifnity tn religious sentiments. 
This assertion may appear startling to some. '' What !" (some 
of my readers may be ready to exclaim) " was there any diver- 
sity of opinion in the primitive ohurch, under apostolic guidance? 
we have always supposed, that there existed a perfect agree- 
ment on all points among the 6rst Christians, and that the proper 
method to restore the primitive purity of the church is to insist 
on agreement on all points from those who could unite with us 
as a church of Christ." This opinion has also prevailed for 
many centuries, and has been the prolific mother of extensive 
and incalculable evils in the christian church. It has led to the 
persecution and death of milHons of our fellow men under the 
papal dominion, it has caused endless divisions and envyings 
and strife in the Protestant churches. 

Its &]lacy we think appears from the following considerations : 

It is rendered highly probable by the fact that the Scriptures 
contain no provision to preserve absolute unity of sentiment on 
all points of religious doctrines and worship if it ever had existed. 
Many points of doctrine and forms which men at present regard 
as important, are not decided at all in the sacred volume. Other 
points are inculcated in indefinite language, which admits of sev- 
eral constructions. The diversity of views derived from these 
records by the several religious denominations of equal piety, of 
«qual talent and equal sincerity, indisputably establishes the fact, 
that they do not contain provision for absolute unity of sentiment 
nmong Christians. Now as all admit the substantial similarity 
of the oral instnictions of the apostles to the primitive Christians, 
and their written instructions in the sacred volume, it follows 
that the impressions made on an audience of primitive Chris- 
tians would be the same ; except perhaps in the case of a few 
individuals who might have opportunity of personal intennews 
and more minute inquiry with the apostles. With the greatest 
ftcility the Author of our holy religion could have made such 
provision. He did by inspiration endow his apostles with every 
requisite qualification not naturally possessed by them, and led 
them into all necessary truth. Now as they have left many 
points of doctrine and forms of worship and government unde- 
cided, and as they do not express with philosophical precision 
the doctrines which they do teach, it is a just inference that one 
reason why these minor differences are not obviated in the 
church, and all tiuly pious, able and futhful Christiana do 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 15 



114 Dr. SchmueJcer's Appeal. [Jan. 

not agree on all points is, that the sacred volame has not made 
prpvbion for such absolute unanimity. Let no one here assert 
thai haman language is so deficient, and the education and 
habits of men so diverse, that they will impose different con- 
structions ) on any composition. The contrary is the case. 
Even uninspired men of well disciplined mind, have often ex- 
pressed their views on these topics in language which is not mis- 
understood. Is there any doubt, in any well informed mind, as 
to the opinions taught on the several topics which separate the 
principal protestant churches, by Calvin in bis Institutes, or by 
Whitby on the Five Points?^ In regard to the meaning of 
some protestant creeds there has been, it is true, not a little 
controversy. But the framers of these Confessions designedly 
used language somewhat generic and indefinite, in order that 
persons of not entirely accordant sentiments might sign them, 
and modern disputants of each party have endeavored to prove 
these creeds favorable only to their own views. Or, persons 
charged with deviation from an adopted creed, and believing 
themselves to adhere to its general tenor, are naturally inclined 
to interpret its indefinite or generic terms in favor of their own 
views, whilst their opponents, pursuing a contrary course, strain 
those same expressions as far as possible in a different direction. 
But it will not be denied, that it would be no difficult task for 
any well educated divine to make, in a single octavo page, such 
a statement of doctrines, as would distinguish any one of the 
prominent protestant denominations from all others, — to firame a 
creed, concerning whose real meaning, there would be no dif- 
ference of opinion. Therefore, as the written instructions of 
the apostles and other inspired writers, do not contain provision 
to produce absolute unanimity among the pious, since the apos- 
tolic age, and as these very written instnictions were addressed 
to the primitive Christians, and were the only inspired instruct 
tions which many of them possessed ; there can be but little 
doubt, that if a dozen of those Christians had been required to 
state their views on all the points of diversity between protest 
tant Christians, it would have been found, that the impressions 
then made by these books, were not more definite than those 
which they now produce on the same points of doctrine. And 
as the oral teaching of the apostles was doubtless substantially the 
aame as their recorded instructions ; the impression made by 
them on the entire primitive church was probably the same so 
far as doctrines are concerned ; whilst it is evident, that in re- 



1838.] Dr. Schmttcker's Agpcal. US 

gud to the apostles' mode of worship and church govenuneDt, 
there could have been but one opinion, among those who had 
witnessed them with their own eyes^ Again, the fact that the 
Bible is not constituted so as to obviate this diversity of senti«- 
ment, when it might easily have been so formed by the hand 
of inspiration, is cmdtuive proof that the points of diversity 
among real and enlightened Giristiansy are not and cannot be 
of essential importance. 

But the existence of diversity of opinion in the apostolic 
churches is placed ieyond all possible doubt by the express 
declaration of the apostle Pauly who, knowing that such dlfier- 
ences would continue to exist in after ages, has also prescribed 
regulations for our conduct towards those who may differ from 
us : * ^^ Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye but not (in 
order) to (engage in) disputations with him about doubtful mat- 
ters. For one believeth that he may eat all things : another, 
who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise 
him that eateth not ; and let not him that eateth not, judge him 
that eateth ; for God hath received him. Who art thou that 
judgest another man's servant ? To his own master he standeth 
(M* ialleth. — One man esteemeth one day above another ; anoth* 
er esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully per«> 
suaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth 
it to the Lord ; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord 
he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for 
be giveth God thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he 
eateth not, and giveth God thanks. — But why dost thou judge 
thy brother ? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother I fov 
we shaU all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." 

Here then we have the express testimony of the aposde, that 
differences of opinion did exist among the pimitive Christians 
at Rome in reference to at least two points, the diversity of 
meats and the question whether all days should be regarded as 
equally holy, or whether the Jewish distinction of days should 
be observed by Christians. Both the points of difference are 
moreover of such a character, relating to matters of fact, tangi- 
ble and visiUe in their nature, that any regulation which the 
apostle may have previously given. Christians would be aided 
in comprehending, by observing the example and practice of 
the apostles themselves. They were matters too concerning 

• Rom. 14: 1—13. 



1 16 Dr. S^mucker^s Appeal. [Jak 

one of which he had seven years before excNreflsed his opioioB 
in pretty evident language to tlie Ghilatian brethren, when be 
said : * '' How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly ele» 
ments whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage ? Ye ob* 
serve days and months and times and years ; I am afraid of 
you lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." And how 
does the apostle settle this dispute among the Romans ? How 
does he introduce perfect unity of sentiment among them on 
this point of christian duty ? it is worthy of special observa- 
tion, that he does not even attempt to induce them all to think 
alike ; but enjoins on each one obedieuce to the dictates of his 
own conscience, and on all abstbence front every attempt to 
condemn or censure their brethren for honest difference of opin** 
ion ; he enjoins on all mutual forbearance and brotherly unity I 
Be it remembered too, that this point of difference among the 
primitive Christians,! b one, on which the declarations of the 
New Testament have produced pretty general unanimity among 
modern i»x>testant Christians, whilst it is a matter of historical 
notoriety that the diversity on this very topic was not entirely 
banbhed from the primitive church a century after all the boo]i» 
of the New Testament which tpuch on the subject had been 
written. 

Again, look at the church of Corinth itself, whose attempts 
at division Paul so decidedly censured. The apostle explicitly 
informs us, that some members of the Corinthian church itnp- 
ed the resurrection of the body. As to the reason of their de- 
nial, whether the leaven of the Sadducees had infected them, 
or whether, as Greeks, they were misled by their philosophy 
falsely so called, and with Celsus despised the doctrine as ^' the 
hope of worms," the eXnig anwlTinwp, we know not ; but for 
the fact Paul is our authority. " How," he remarks, " say 
some amow you, that there is no resurrection of the dead ?" 
He then advances several arguments in favor of the doctrine, 
answers the philosophical objections to it, and proves to them 
tbe fiillacy of their opinion on this subject ; but not the least 
intimation b given, that those who believe in the resurrection 
should separate from those who denied it. Thb doctrine bad 

• Gal. 4: 10. 

t According to tbe earliest records extant the difference in the 
time of celebrating Easter is referred to the apostles tJiemeelves. See 
Dr. Mardock's Mosheim 1. 102, 103. 164. 



1638.] l)r. Sehnmcker's Ajppeal. 1 17 

not, it IS true, been so amply unfolded by any inspired writer 
as is done by Paul in bis epistle to these very men, and we are 
unable to perceive how any believer in the Scriptures could 
now denv this doctrine. Yet the fact of the resurrection, to 
say nothing of the Old Testament, bad been disunctly affirmed 
by the Saviour and his apostles, as must have been known to 
the Corinthians. 

It is therefore absolutely certain that the bond of primitive 
union, was not that of perfect unity of sentiment on religious 
subjects even in the days of the apostles themselves. That dif« 
fer^aces on other topics, especially on minor points of abstract 
doctrine, also existed, is evident from the iact ex{Nres8ly decla* 
redt (I^ some even went so iar as to fell into fundamental doc* 
trinal error, such as to ^^ deny tlie Lord that bought them." 
Now every rational man will admit, that the progress of the 
human mind in the fluctuation of opinions is gradual, and that 
where the extremes occurred the intermediate gradations must 
have existed* It seems almost impossible for a mind elevated 
but a single grade above savageism, when for example the doc^ 
trine was taught that Christ made an atonement for sinners, not 
to advert to ^e persons for whom this atonement was made, 
and to understand the declarations of the gospel as teaching, 
that it was made for somebody, either for all men or a portion 
of mankind. But although we have no reason to imagine that 
the same books which are diiSerently understood by modem 
Christians, could have produced absolute unity of opinion among 
them ; we 6nd no certain traces of duitndon about points of 
abitrad doctrine. As these abstract differences had no per- 
ceptible influence on christian practice, the priniitive Christians 
probably did not even compare their views on many points of 
modern controversy, and may have differed on some minor top- 
ics without knowing it* Yet on some points they differed and 
discussed ; but Paul dissuades them fiom indulging in '^ doubt- 
fol disputations."* 

Having thus, as we suppose, satis&ctorily ascertained, that the 
bond of union among the apostolic churches did iiot consist in a 
compact ecclesiastical organization of the entire church in any 
nation or country under one supreme judicatory ; nor in the 

* 

* Rom. 14: 1 : Him diat is weak in the faith (who has not fully ap- 
prehended all the christian doctrines) receive ye, but not to doubtful 
disputations (/ii| us dumQhug dialoywfi&p^ withojut deciding on his 
seruples). 



118 Dr. Sehmucker^s Appeal. [J ait* 

orgamizatum of the whole church on earth under cne. vitiUe 
head, such as the pope and papal hierarchy ; and finally, that it 
did not consist in e^solute unanimiiy of religious Beniiment ; it 
remains for us to inquire into the positive elements which did 
compose it — ^whtkt each congregation transacted its ordinary 
business of government and discipline for itself, and constituted 
as it were one member of the body of Christ, what were the 
ties by which these several members were united together, and 
by which the spirit of brotherly love was preserved among 
them? 

We here presuppose the prevalence among the primitive 
Christians of that unity of spirit, which gave life and value to 
all the external forms of union. Without this, the church, even 
if externally bound together by a bond of iron, would be a life* 
less trunk destitute of that pervading spirit that gives interest 
and animaUon to the whole. But on this subject we are not 
permitted to cherish a moment's doubt. We are expressly 
told by Luke in his Acts of the Apostles :* ^^ And the mud* 
titude of them that believed, were of one heart and of one soui.^* 
Then it was that the disciples continued " with one accord, 
breaking bread from house to house, and did eat their meat 
with gladness and with singleness of heart, praising God and 
having favor with the people.''! It is this unity of spirit, this 
undissembled brotherly love, cherished in their bosoms and 
manifested in their conduct towards each other, which invested 
the example of the primitive church with such an omnipotence of 
moral power, and extorted firom the surrounding heathen them-* 
selves the exclamation : ^' See how these Christians love one 
another." But our object at this time is to ascertain, what 
were the principal external means of manifesting and perpet- 
uating this unity of spirit among the primitive christian churcnes. 

I. The first means of union was entire unity of name ; that 
is, the careful avoidance of all names, which implied difibrence 
or division. In the apostolic age, the followers of the Redeemer 
were technically called Christians, and only Christians. The 
churches in different places were distinguished hy geographical 
designations, and by these alone. We read of uie church at 
Jerusalem, the church at Corinth, the church at Rome, etc. 
but not of the Pauline or Apolline or Cepbine church, nor of 
a church named after any other person but him, who bought 

* Acts 4: 32. t Acts 2:46. 



1838.] Dr. Sckmuekei^* Jfptd. \ 19 

the church — not a part of the chuich, hut the wholt church, 
with his hlood. Let it not be supposed, that this is an unim- 
portant feature of christian union. Paul the apostle did not 
thus regard it, when he so promptly met and repelled the at- 
tempt of those at Corinth, who adopted such sectarian names, 
saying << I am of Paul and I am of Apollas and I am of Cephas." 
He expressly forbade their adoption of such names, declaring 
that by so doing they implied, that their adopted leaders had 
died for them, and that they had been baptised into their names. 
The sentiments of the church, during the earlier centuries, may 
be learned from the declaration of Lactantius at the commence- 
ment of the fourth century : '* The Montanists, Novatians, Val- 
entians— or whatever else they may call themselves, have ceas- 
ed to be Christians, becanse they have renounced the name of 
Christians, and called themselves by the names of men.'' (In- 
stit* div. 1. IV. c. 30). This estimate of the importance of 
^iinihf of namCy is doubtless overwrought ; yet the influence of 
diflbrent names is far from being unimportant at present. 
'^ Names are things" said that distbguished and laborious ser- 
vant of Christ, the Rev. Dr. A. Green, when on assuming the 
editorial chair of " The Presbyterian Magazine," he changed 
its title to Christian Advocate. His reasons for this alteration 
he thus assigns : ^' We usually form some judgment of a pub* 
lication fiom its title ; and indeed, it is for this very purpose 
that a title is given. Now on hearing of a Presbyterian Mag- 
azine, some, it appears, have set it down at once as a sectarian 
work, of which the main and ultimate design would be to dif- 
fuse and defend the doctrines and opinions which are peculiar 
to the Presbyterians, and on this account they have resolved to 
give it no encouragement." What is here acknowledged of 
tbe term Presbyterian, is equally true of every other sectarian 
name of christian churches. Whilst it is conceded that the 
substitution of geographical for sectarian names could not re- 
move the whole difficulty ; it is equally certain that it would 
not be without its influence. Even Celsus, the bitter foe of 
Christians, when charging on them as criminal their diflferences 
on nonessentials which prevailed among them in his day, was 
compelled to acknowledge as one bond of union among diem, 
their unity of name. Thousands of enlightened, true Christians 
of different denominations differ only in name. And thousands 
there are among the more ignorant, who exhibit much acerbity 
against other sects and prepossesrions for their own, and yet 



ISO Dr. Schmueker^i Appui. [Jam* 

are ignorant of all the points of distinction between them ex* 
cept the name. 

The second bond of union among the primitive churches, 
was unity of opinion on all fundamental doctrines^ that isy the 
profession of a creed of fimdamentala. That the primitive 
Christians, notwithstanding their minor difierences, did agree on 
all fundamental doctrines, is evident, because they possessed 
either the oral instruction of the aposdes, or the same sacred 
records of them which have produced such unity in fundamen- 
tals among modem Christians. It is presupi)osed by the apos* 
tie's injunction ^' eamestiy to contend for the faith once delivered 
to the saints ;" for, before they could ccmtend for the faith, 
they must have a general understanding among them at least as 
to what the fundamentals of that faith are, for they were also 
commanded to abstain from '^ doubtful disputations," and not 
^' to judge" their brethren for minor differences. It is finally 
proved by the fact, that they required of every candidate for 
baptism a profession of his creed of faith prior to the adminis* 
tration of the ordinance : " Ifthoubelievesf' (said Philip to the 
eunuch) ** with aU thine hearty thou mayest he baptized. And 
he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
Ood."* The custom of requiring of all applicants for baptism 
a confession of their faith in the fundamentals of the gospel, 
seems to have been general throughout the whole chutch. 
For among the earliest documents of christian antiquity that 
have reached us, there is one which by the universal testimony 
of the christian fathers, is an authentic collection of the severid 
points of doctrine to which this assent was required from the 
days of the aposties, we mean the so called Apostles^ Creed. 
This creed is highly interesting and important, especially to 
modem Christians ; first, because it shows what the primitive 
church universally understood the Scriptures to teach ; and 
secondly, because it incontestibly establishes the Act, that the 
primitive church, when guided by the. inspired apostles, and 
soon after, deemed it lawful to require unanimity only in fm^ 
damentid doctrines in order to the unity of the church. This 
creed, let it further be remembered, was the only one which 
was adopted in the church of Christ until the fiwrth century, in 
which the council of Nice adopted one of the same import, and 
of but; littie greater length. Some small variations are found in 

• Aos 8: 37. See also Rom. 13: 6. 9 Tim. 1: 14. Jude v. a 



1838.] Dr. Schmueker's Appeal. 121 

the earliest copies, but substantially it reads thus :* / believe in 
Ood the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth : 

And in Jesiu Christ, his only "Son our Lord; who was conr 
ceived by the Holy Ohost, bom of khe' virgin Mary, suffered 
tmder Pontius Ptlate, was crucified, dead and buried. — The 
third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven, and 
titteth on the right hand of Ood the Father Almighty, from 
thence he shdii come to judge the quick and the dead. 

I believe in the Holy Ohost, the holy catholic or universal 
church ; the communion of saints ; the forgiveness of sins ; 
the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. 

To this, some copies add the sentence *^ descended into 
hades, or the place of departed spirits ;" but it was not found in 

* The earliest copies of this symbol are in the Latin language. 
There are several Tarioua readings extant, which probably originated 
in different Western churches, which used this symbol. We shdi 
give the symbol, together with the various readings in parentheses^ 
so that the reader may at one glance see the whole, and also per- 
ceive that even with the added variations, it was still a creed which 
all orthodox Protestants can subscribe : 

L Credo in (uniim) Deum, Patrem omnipotentem creatorem coeli 
et terrae (**ereatorem coeli et terrae^ defuit in orient, et Rom. antiquo 
symbolo : In Aquilejensi autem positum erat, ^ invisibUem et impassi- 
haem."*) 

'■ II. Et in Jesum Christum filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum, 
(^^.et in unum Dominum nostrum, Jesum Christum, filium ejus tmi- 
genitum/' ita addeodo et transponendo legit olim EccJesia orientalis.) 
Qui coQceptus est de Spiritu sancto ; natus ex Maria vii^ine (''qui 
nattts est de Spiritu sancto ex Maria virgine** communis olim lectio 
erat.) Passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus, de- 
scendit ad inferna ; (** cruciiixus sub Poutio Pilato et sepultus** sim- 
pliciter olim multt legebant ; Aquilejense tandem symbolum addidit 
''descendit ad inferna ;" ex quo symbolo Sec. VI. Romana ecclesia 
banc appendicem sue symbolo inseruit) tertia die resurrexit a mor* 
tuis ; aseendit ad coelos ; sedet ad dextram Dei Patris omuipoientiB. 
Inde venuiruB est judicare vivos et mortuos. 

III. Credo in spihtum sanctum ('' et in spiritum sanctum" oliro)^ 
Sanctam (** unam" orientales addiderunt) Ecclesiam Catholioam ; 
sanctorum communionem, {*^ catbolicam, ex sanctorum commnnio* 
nem" ex Niceno forsan symbolo insertum, olim defuit), ^Remissionem 
peccatorum ; Carnis (hvjus symb. Aquilej. addidit) resurrectionem $ 
et vitam aetemam. Amen, (''vitam aeternam" in plerisque olim syno- 
bolis desiderabatur). See Clemm's Einleitung in die Religion und 
Theologie, Vol. IV. p. 459. 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 16 



122 Dr. Schmucker^i Agpeid. [Jan. 

the creed of the Latin churches, until the sixth century. Here 
then we have the series of doctrines, the belief of which was 
the bond of union in the church of Christ during three hundred 
years ; and was regarded as sufficient for ecclesiastical unioD, 
without any inquiry a3 to differences on minor points. All who 
adopted these doctrines and adorned them by a consistent walk, 
were regarded as worthy members of the one, universal church 
of Christ, were every where admitted to sacramental commun- 
ion by right. All professing these doctrines, and residing in 
the same place, were united into one church, and worshipped 
together ; and different christian churches, occupying the same 
geographical ground, and distinguished iran each other by dif- 
ferences concerning doctrines not contained in this creed, had 
no existence in the church for several centuries : were totally 
unknown during the golden age of Christianity. To this isum- 
mary of doctrine some few articles were added in after ages by 
different councils, to meet several fundamental heresies which 
arose. But the additions are few, and generally composed 
with studious brevity. In reference to these doctrines, which 
he had just before expressed in bis own language, Irenaeus, a 
strenuous defender of the faith against various heretics, a disci- 
ple of Polycarp, the friend of the apostle John, makes the fol- 
lowing remarks (which are equatty applicable to the several 
orthodox Protestant churches though they are so lamentably 
divided) : "This faith the church has received, and though dis- 
persed over the whole world, assiduously preserves as if she in- 
habited a single house ; and believes in these things as having 
but one heart and one soul : and with perfect harmony pro- 
claims, teaches, hands down these things, as though she had 
but one mouth. For though there are various and dissimilar 
languages in the world ; yet the power of the faith transmitted 
is one and the same. Neither the churches in Germany, nor 
in Iberiaj (Spain), nor among the Celtae (in France), nor in 
the East, nor in Egypt, nor in Lybia, nor in the middle regions 
of the world (Jerusalem and the adjacent dbtricts) believe or 
teach any other doctrines. But as the sun b one and the same 
throughout the whole ; so the preaching of the truth shines 
every where, and enlightens all men, who are willing to come 
to a knowledge of truth. Nor will the most powerful in speech 
among the governors of the churches say any thing more than 
these ; (for no one can be above his master) ; nor the most 
feeble any thing less. For as there is but one &itb, he that is 



1838.] Dr. Sehmucker's Apptd. 123 

able to speak much cannot enlarge ; nor he who can say little 
diminish it.''* 

In the earlier part of the fourth century (A. D. 825) the 
Nicene Creed Vas adopted in order to exclude the Arians from 
the church. It is little eke than a repetition of the apostles' 
creed, with several clauses referring to the error of the Arians. 
The synod of Constantinople about fifty-snL years afterwards 
^A. D. 381) still further enlarged this summary, by the addi- 
tion of several clauses concerning the worship of the Holy 
Spirit, the validity of baptism, etc. This creed as enlarged by 
the synod of Constantinople, is contained in the symbols of the 
lAitheran church in Europe, and also in the Prayer Book of 
our Protestant Episcopal brethren in this country. It reads 
thus : 

'^ I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of 
heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. 

^ And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the onl^ bego^en Son of 
God, begotten of his Father before all worlds ; God of God, 
Light of Light, true God of the true God, begotten not made, 
being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things 
were made ; who for us men and for our salvation, came down 
firom heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin 
Mary, and was made roan and was crucified also for us under 
Ponthis Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day 
be rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into 
heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father ; and he 
shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the 
dead ; whose kingdom shall have no end. 

'^ And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of 
life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with 
the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified^ 
who spake by the prophets. And I believe in one catholic 
and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the re- 
mission of sins ; and I look for the resurrection of the dead and 
the life of the World to come.f " 

a^w - I I I I I _ _ I ■ — n I ■ — ■ I I < ' 1 ~ " " — — - - - ^ 

* Ireaaeus adv. baereaes, L. I. c 8. p. 46. ed. Grebe : and Mason'* 
Plea, p. 41. 

t The foUo^og is the Greek original of the Nieene Creed, aa pre^ 
served in the Jlietory of Socmtes, L. I. c. 8. By a comparison of it 
with the above' veraioD, the reader may distinguish the addition* made 
by the council of Constantinople. 



1 24 Dr. Seknwcker^s Appeal. [ J aw^ 

These symbols, let it be remembered, we adduce not for the 
purpose of proving the doctrines contained in them, (a point 
to be established only by the Scriptures) but in order to estab* 
lish two facts highly important to Our inquiry, viz. 1) that the 
early Christians did require assent to certain articles of christian 
faith ;) and 2) that these articles to which assent was required, 
were only fundamental doctrines and facts of the christian re- 
ligion. 

It is thus evident that unity of opinion on fundamental doc- 
trines and on those ahne, constituted one of the principal bonds 
of union among churches in the early ages. It is moreover 
clear, as the several orthodox protestant churches of our land 
cordially embrace all the doctrines enumerated by Irenaeus and 
the Apostles' and the Nicene creeds, that they ought not on 
the principles of primitive Christianity, to be cut up into cEfierent 
sects, but should be united into one universal church. But in-, 
stead of all the Protestant churches embracing one common 
creed of fundamentals, and holding it up to the view of the 
world as the symbol of their unity in the &ith as Christians did 
in the earlier ages at every case of baptism ; the use of difierent 
creeds naturally inculcates the idea of doctrinal diflbrence in* 

ao^foamv noiifnip, Kjoli ck ha Kv^wp Xt^vf XQiozop^ tw vmw %ov 
Stov, ysypfj&sirttt i» tov IIat(^ (ioveytini^ t ovr ianv in ttig oiauitg loii 
ZToT^Of, Bbop i% Otov xat tptag ix (pmog, 0W9 aXt^^wov ix Oeov ilfi~ 
^irov, ytmn^^trta qv nonj&ena, 6/ioowrtow t<^ naigif d! ov to nan» 
iywsto, TO Tc h toi ov^avco, xai xa h t^i pj, di ^fiag ay^^eojrovc, nat 
dia tfiv fjfUTtqap atoiriQiav natfX^orta xai (ragnoi&tna na^ Bvav^Qontri" 
aetrta na&orta nai ivatnarra ti} t^ati} ^/m^ot, ivBl^orta tig tovg ovQa- 
9avg, iQX^l*^^ nqivtu l^tnnai %ai ytxQOvg, Kat tig to aytov itytvfia. 
The above was the original form of the creed, and contains all that 
catechumenB were required to repeat as their confession. The fol- 
lowing clatise was however added by the Nicene fathere, and all 
ministers were required also to suhecribe to it : Tovg di il<;^on«( ot» 
tjv note oTi ovx ^y, tun it^fifw ytvrti&fipa$ ovx i^y, »a& ot* 4 ovar onwf 
iyspBTOf t; i^ kxtqag vnwnafnag tj ownas tpaoMovitg eiva*, v; icrMFToy, ^ 
tQsmop, ^ alloimoif jo9 vlav tov Osov^ aya^c^oTi^M i} iyia xa^oXut^ 
na$ anooToXutfi t»xlfi<rw^ i. e. The holy, catholic and apostolic church 
condemns (the opinion of) those who say, that there was a time when 
the Son of God did not exist, and that before he was begotten he did 
not exist, and that he was made out of things that w^re not, or who 
•ay tliat he is of some other hypostasis or substance, or that he was 
created, or that he is changeable or subject to variation. See Olemm's 
Eiulaiiuog iu Religion uod Tlieologie, Vol. IV. p. 464-^. 



1838.] Dr. SckfMicker's Appeal. 125 

stead of unity ; and their great length, by bringing to light all 
the minor differences, and ranking them indiscriminately with 
the fundamentals, and making them the basis of separate 
churches, inevitably must tend to throw into the shade our real 
fundamental union and perpetuate the schisms in the body of 
Christ. 

The third bond of union among the primitiyfe Christians, 
woi the mutual acknowledgement of each other* i acts of disci'- 
pUne. If an individual was excommunicated or under censure 
in one church, he could not obtain admission into any other. 
As a security against imposition, it was customary for persons 
in good standing, when travelling into strange places, to take 
letters of introduction, or certificates of their good standing irom 
the pastor. When any one was destitute of such certificate, 
his application for church privileges was always rejected. To 
these letters Paul refers, and expresses the opinion, that he 
would need no such document among the Corinthians, as he 
was weU known to them : ^' Need we, as some others, epistles 
of commendation to you, or letters of commendation firom you ? 
Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of ail 
men." * This same custom was prescribed m the church for 
centuries, and numerous s}modical decrees were enacted for its 
oonfinnation. In the apostolic Canons or Regulations we find 
the following : 

Cetnon 12. JBi tig xlrigixos i^ Xaixog wprngkaiisvog^ titov idin^ 
TO^, mntl^onf sig inpanolsi, dsx&fi aviv ygafAgiaswg frvataTtnotv, 
iipogiC^o^w jca# o di^afitvog mm 6 db%&iig.^* t That this regu- 
lation prevailed from the very days of the apostles, is highly 
probable, because, as we have seen, Paul himself makes men- 
tun of letters of this nature. At the oecumenical or general 
council held at Nice, in the year A. D. 325, at which were 
present ministers from the greater part of the christian world, 
the following resolution, or canon, was adopted : 

Resolution or Canon 5. In regard to those persons^ wheth" 
er dergymen or laymen, who have been excommmticated by a 
bishop, the existing rule is to be retained, namely, that they 

• 2 Cor. 3: 1—4. 

f If any excommunicated clergyman, or a layman who has hem ex- 
eommunicattd, or denied admission (as member of the church), go to 
another cUy and is reeeised miAout Idkrs of rscotnmendation, hath he 
who receives him, and the person thus received shall he excomsMnUated. 



126 Dr. Sdmucker^9 Appeal. [Jaw. 

shaU not be reitored by any other than by the one toho excom- 
municated them. Inquiry ought however to be instituted^ 
whether their expulsion from the church was not occasioned by 
a contentious spirit or some other mean or hostile passion. 
And in order that this may be properly done, there shall 
imnually be two synods held in each provinccy and at these 
meetings of the bishops^ suitable examinations shall be institu- 
tedy in order that every person may see the justice of iJie ex^ 
communication of those who transgressed against (tbe regula- 
tions of) the bishopy untU the assemblage of bislums shcMy if 
they see fity pronounce a milder sentence. One of those synod- 
iccu meetings shaU be held before the spring fasty the other in 
thefaU.* 

At the couDcH or synod of Antioch, held h A. D. 341^ 
sixteen years after that at Nice, a resolution of just the same 
import was passed : 

Resolution 6. If any person has been excommunicated by 
his bishopy he shall not be restored by any one else than that 
bishop himself y unless his case has been examined bythe council 
or synody and a milder sentence been obtained. This regular- 
tion shall be applicable aUJce to laymeny presbyters y deaconsy 
and all the clergy. f 

From these testimonies it is abundantly evident, that the 
churches in the earlier centuries fully acknowledged the disci- 
plinarian acts of each other : nor is it difficult to perceive the 
salutary influence which would result from such mutual marks 
of confidence. Carried to a reasonable extent, they would give 
an efficacy to church discipline, which it has almost entirely 
lost in moidem times. This regulation would cherish brotheriy 
love between the churches, and tend to give visibility to their 
union. 

The fourth bond of union am/ong the primitive Christians 
was sacramental and ministerial communion. This feature is 
one of very extensive application and most salutaiy influence 
on the diffirent portions of the christian church. The apostle 
Paul may be regarded as inculcating it in his declaration to the 
Christians at Corinth ; " For we being many, are one bread and 
one body (that is, you at Corinth, I and my fellow-Christians 
here at Epbesus, fccm the midst of whom I am addressing you, 

• Fueh*8 Bibliothek der KirebenvenammlangeD, Vol. 1. p. 304. 
t Ibid. Vol II. p. 63. 



1888.] Dr. Sekmdcei^B J^pptaL tS7 

one body) ; fwr tire art aU partakers of that one breadJ^^ 
AccordiDgly we find, that id the earliest period to which the 
records of christian antiquity extend, every church received to 
communion as fully as its own members, the members and min- 
isters of every other acknowledged christian church on earth, 
upon evidence of their good standing. Strangers coming fjx>m 
other churches were required to present letters or certificates of 
their standing ; and aU Christians, whether clergy or laymen, 
regarded it as a duty to commune with the members of any 
other church, at which they happened to be present. It was a 
common custom for Christians in the earlier centuries, when 
travelling, to take such certificates of membership with them ; 
and when stopping in a city or town, they sought out the 
Christians living in it, and received from them every mark of 
attention and friendship. These letters were termed literae 
formatae or fga/iftaia nrvnoiftiva, as they were of a particular 
form to prevent counterfeits ; they were sometimes denominat- 
ed epistola^ conmunicatoriaef or ygciftfiata xoipmp$xa, letters of 
ecclesiastical communion or fellowship.f 

The broad principle of scriptural christian commtmion extends 
indiscriminately to aU whom we regard as true disciples of 
Christ. Thus it is laid down bv Peter in hb vindication, when 
censured for communing with Gentile converts : ^^ thou wentest 
in to men unciicumcised and didst eat with them.'' % Hb ar- 
gument is thus summed up, after he had detailed the &cts on 
which it rested ; " Foramuch as Ood gave them the like gifty 
OB he did unto us, who believed on the hord Jems Christ; 
what was /, that 1 could withstand Ood 7" 

It is eqwdiy certain that ministerial communion and (^cial 
acknowledgement pervaded the church in her primitive ag6s. 
The regulations made by dififerent synods or councils to prevent 
the abuse of this privilege incontestibly establish its existence. 
But even in the apostolic canons we find the following : 

Canon 32. Mtidsva xcop iiPOfv iniaKonmv n ngsafivjigstp i] 
iuKtoptov ipsv avorattKwp ngoadix^a&su ' xo« iTUiptgofASpmv 
avxutp ipttTtgipeo^moop ' uus iqfiiv tiai KtjgvxiQ tfjg ivaefiiMQ 
ngoo8€xsa0WBa» ' si de ftn/ft rrip xgsMnf avtoK ^nsxogtipioscpssg, 

•1 Cor. 10: 17. 

t Neander's Allgemeine Geachicbta der Chriatlicben ReligioD nod 
Kirche, Vol. I. p. 390. 

t AetB 19: 8> 17. 



128 Dr. SAmucker^s Appeal. [Jan. 

iig KOiwwpiav avtovg ^ij ngoaiiiiQ^i * nolla ytxg ««ra ovvap- 
•naytip y*wr«*.* 

At the synod of Carthage, held A. D. 348 or 349, it was 
resolFed that '^ no one shall receive a minister without letters 
from his bishop.^'f 

If furnished with suitable testimonials a minister in one part 
of the church was acknowledged as such in every other, and if 
present at public worship was ordinarily invited to take part in 
conducting the services. 

The tendency which such free sacramental intercommunion 
as opportunity olSers with all over the whole earth who present 
credible evidence of genuine discipleship, cannot readily be cal- 
culated. The views and principles and feelings which it pre- 
supposes, constitute important elements of the millennial union of 
the future church. God grant their speedy disseminauon over 
th^ church universal I 

The Jifth means by which unity was promoted and preserv- 
ed among the primitive Christians, was occasional epistolary 
communication* Of this fact we have abundant proof in the 
epistles of Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and Barnabas, who are 
termed apostolic fathers, because they lived partly in the apos- 
tolic age. Some of these epistles are doubtless spurious and all 
corrupted, yet enough remains to answer the purpose for which 
we adduce them to show that they were letters written to dif- 
ferent churches to promote doctrinal and ecclesiastical umaa 
among them. The age immediately subsequent to the apos- 
tles furnishes numerous instances of such epistolary commnnioo 
of the churches. From Eusebius we learn that Dionysius of 
Corinth about the year A. D. 160, sent abroad numerous epis- 
tles of this kind. " And first (says Eusebius^) we must speak 

■ ■ ■ - — I— ■— I— ■■ ■ . — ^ ■ -^ ■■ ■ . — . .- — ■ ■■* ^ ■■—■■■ ■— Mil ■ , Ml^— ^— I ■ ^ 

* " Let DO one receive strange (foreign) bishops or presbyters or 
<1eacon8 without letters of recommendation ; and the letters that are 
brought must be examined. If thej^ prove to be pious preachers 
(preabhera of piety) let them be received : but if they do not ; their 
immediate necessities should be supplied, but they must not be re- 
ceived into communion. For many instances of fraud have occurred 
in this matter." Koepler's Bihliotbek der Kirehenv&ter, Vol. IV. p. 
340. 

t Fuch's Bihliotbek der Kirchenversammlungen, Vol. III. p. 85. 

* Eusebius, IV. cb. 93. Kal nqAtw yt ntnl Jiwvalov <pettiw ' 
ou T« trig h Koqiv^^ naqoudag top xr^q inumomig ijmtxdoiOTO &^ifw^, 
lisii ig trjg h&iov tpd^onopiag ov fkipop tdig wi ovsor, OM ^dfi mi) tdig 



1888.] Dr. Schmucke^s Jlgpeal. 129 

of Dkmysius, who was appobted over the church at Corinth, 
and imparted freely not only to his own people, but to others 
abroad also, the blessings of bis divine labors. But he was most 
useful to all in the general epistles which he addressed to the 
churches. One of them is addressed to the Lacedaemonians, 
and contains instmctians in the true religumy and inculcates 
peace and unity : one also to the Athenians, exciting them to 
the faith and the life prescribed by the gospel, from which he 
shows that they had swerved, so that they had nearly fallen 
from the truth since the martyrdom of Publius, their leader 
(bishop) which happened in the persecutions of those times. 
The necessity of such letters as means of christian instruction, 
is at present superseded by the universal dissemination of the 
holy Scriptures ; yet as bonds of christian union, they may still 
be occasionally resorted to with the happiest results, especially 
between Christians of distant countries as a substitute for per- 
sonal intercourse. We cannot but commend the epistle of the 
.venerable Dr. Planck of Germany, to the General Synod of the 
Lutheran Church in this country, as also the epistles of the 
Congr^tional and Presbyterian churches of the United States 
to the Christians of the same denomination in Europe. Still, 
all these epistles bear on their front the badge of schism ; for 
they were addressed by particular sects of Christians, not to 
Christians of another country generally, but only to Christians 
of the same sect. They are epistles from followers of Paul and 
ApoUos in one land, to disciples of the same leaders in another. 
So completely has sectarianism separated the several denomina- 
tions, that by many it is regarded as immodest to address any 
others than those of our own sect. Instead of that community 
of interest between all the members of Christ's body, which the 
apostle inculcates, " so that all the members should have the 
same care one for another, and whether one member suflfer, all 
the memben safkt with it ;"* sectarianism has taught each 

isii T^( idXodoTt^g iip&iwmg itUMHim^* ^ifff^ifktnviw anwrn kavthip 
Ma&laia^ h (dg tmnvnomo MiMUiMiTf nffog jog ixxXfialag inunokalg * 
MV imuf, 1} /i<r n^g Jmudatfiowl&iig^ l^odo^iag nojfix^xiani, ii^iPfig n 
9ud hmrimg vno&niK^ ' ^ dk n^og A&riPalovg, duyiifrim} marioig »al 
t^g Ktnito tvayvtllop noXnaiag * ijc ohyvt^fiaartag iUyx^ ^ i^ fun^ 
ffov dttp inatnartag tov loyov, i^ ovni^ tor nqotat&xct ovrinf ZTov- 
ftJUaw (MO^riv^iprM Mtra fovg fota avytfiii duityfuAg, 

• 1 Cor. 12: 86. 

Vol. XL No. 29. 17 



130 Dr. SchmucJcer^s Appeal. [J Air* 

member of the body to stand aloof from the others, has taught 
them by no means to " have the same care one for another ! !" 

The last bond of primitive union was the occasional consuha^ 
tion of different churches by representatives convened in a coun' 
cil or synod. This means of prolonging unity among Christians 
was for several reasons not very frequently resorted to in the 
apostolic age. The continual journies of the apostles tended 
in a measure to answer the same purpose. How often coun- 
cils for mutual consultation were held, prior to that at Rome, 
mentioned by Eusebius, we know not ; but the principle being 
sanctioned by the apostolic example, Acts xv., the church 
should apply it just as extensively as is found to promote the 
spirit of union, brotherly love and order among Christians. As 
however neither Christ nor his apostles have appointed such 
bodies as courts of judicature or appeal; it is probable, that 
whatever business ot this kind is referred to the more extensive 
judicatories, their decisions should be regarded mainly as advi- 
sory, and should have no other force than results from the evi- 
dence alleged in support of the opinion given. The danger 
of such General Synods, Assemblies, or Conventions, arises not 
so much from the number of churches represented in them, 
as from the great number of the delegates, from the degree of 
power conferred on them by the elementary members of Christ's 
Dodv, the individual churches ; and from the amount of actual 
business which is transferred from the churches in their ehmer^ 
tary capacity , to these judicatories. If the delegation be small, 
so that the whole body will not be unwieldly ; if the business 
transacted be not such as properly belongs to the individual 
churches ; if it relate only to the general interests of the church ; 
and if the powers of the body be only advisory ; this principle 
of mutual consultation might to a certain extent be safely em- 
ployed. 

In view of these facts and principles, the writer regarded 
with high approbation the proposition for a re-organization of 
the General Assembly of the rresbyterian Church by making 
it an Advisory Council. Tliat measure, which was proposed 
io the Biblical Repertory of 1832, was by uncontradicted fame 
attributed to the Rev. Dr. Alexander, and contains a distinguish- 
ed specimen of practical wisdom, and enlarged views of the 
principles of our holy religion, in their application to ecclesias- 
tical jurisprudence. On precisely the same general principles, 
the General Synod of the Lutheran Church in this country was 



1838.] Hebrew Tcnees, 131 

fiwnded seventeen years ago, and of its salutary and safe prac- 
dcal operation, scarcely a dissenting voice is heard among the 
enlightened friends of evangelical piety among us. 

We have thus endeavored faithfully to exhibit the features 
which constituted the unity of the primitive church. Let us 
DOW pursue the subject further, deduce the principles furnished 
by these facts, and finally develope a plan to restore the unity 
of the body of Christ on the same apostolic principles, which 
constituted it in the primitive ages ; a consummation which 
ought to be devoutly wished for by every disciple of that Sav- 
iour who so earnestly prayed for the union of his followers ; 
an object so dear to the heart of the nobleminded Calvin, that 
to accomplbh it he savs : ^^ As to tmyselff were I likely to be 
of any Mervice, I would not hesitate^ were it necessary , for auck 
a purpose, to cross ten seas^' (Quantum ad me attmet, siquis 
mei usus fore videbitur, ne decern quidem maria, si opus sit, ob 
earn rem trajicere pigeat. Calvin's Epist. p. 61). 



ARTICLE VII. 
The Hebrew Tenses. 



TVmulalioo of EwaJd't Byniax, ia the teeood Q^brUgad) •ditioo of hi* H«braw Graanar» 
■o far u it retpeeta the ute of the Tansss in Hebrew, with remarks on tbe same, by M. 
flciuttt, of tlM Tbool. Seminaryi Andovor. 

[The apparently unlimited metes and bounds of tbe Hebrew 
tenses, as employed in the Old Testament Scriptures, have 
given rise to many curious, and to some not uninteresting theo- 
ries, in relation to this subject. Long has this usace been the 
stumbling-block of grammarians, and particularly of those who 
were inclined to maintain, that every thing in language is man- 
aged with tbe most perfect regularity and uniformity* That 
the Future tense in Hebrew should ever be employed as the 
common historic Aorist in narrations of events that occurred in 
past time, while the Praeterite has far more than an equal share 
in designating things yet to come, is a phenomenon which at 
least is singular in many respects, and which would (as it has 
actually done) naturally give rise to many and diverse theories 
and conjectures. 



132 Hebrew Ttmts. [Jak. 

It is not my present purpose to enter into the history or the 
examination of these at large. It would require somewhat of a 
volume for either ; and my apprehension is, that such a volume 
would not find a very numerous class of readers ; certainly not 
in our country. Most of the theories which have been broach- 
ed, have indeed been ephemeral. They have appeared and 
disappeared with the authors of their existence. And one good 
reason for this has been, that most of the authors of such theo- 
ries have been men of very limited acquisitions in the Hebrew 
lan^age, and therefore could not have much weight in the scale 
of Hebrew literature, nor extend their influence very (ar. 

At present, however, we find the matter in circumstances 
which are quite different. Ewald is unquesUonably among the 
first Hebrew scholars Yiow upon the stage of action. He has 
great talents for linguistic acquisition ; nor is he by any means 
wanting in the power of philosophical speculation on the nature 
and attributes of language. That he b iinee fiK>m all embarass- 
ments on the ground of precedents^ is sufficiently manifest, in 
every step of his progress, to please die most independent class 
of critics, who hold least of all to authority in these matters. 
In my own view, this independency is excessive in Ewald. It 
seems to me to have become even a morbid feeling, and to 
have urged him on to make the d ift reae e* between himself and 
other grammarians as numerous and as large as possible. 

On no subject, perhaps, has he gained more reputation for 
liimselA than in the department of Hebrew Syntax. It has be- 
come fashionable among one class of Hebrew critics in Ger- 
many, to appeal almost exclusively to Cwald as authority ; and 
seldom do they mention other grammarians, unless it be in the 
way of a sneer, or in order to show some kind of contempt for 
them. One would think, from the tenor of what is said by 
them in relation to this subject, that all other Hebrew philolo- 
gists now on the stage had already outlived their fame and 
their usefuhiess. 

Having recently been engaged in publishing a new edition of 
my Hebrew Grammar, I went through a review of the Syntax 
in as thorough a manner as the haste with which it was printed 
permitted me to do. One duty which I prescribed to myself 
was, to read and compare Ewald's Syntax ; specially that of the 
abridged edition of his Grammar, which contains a more orderly 
digest than the first edition, and thoughts more matured. In 
making this comparison I was much struck with that part of 



1838.] Hebrew Tenses. 133 

his Syntax which has respect to the use of the Hebrew tenses. 
When I had completed my grammatical labour^ and finished 
the printing of my book^ I felt a strong desire to re-examine 
(more at lebure) the theory of Ewald on the subject of the He- 
brew tenses. This I have done, and the following translation, 
with the remarks which are appended, is the result of my re- 
examination. I give them to the public, because the subject is 
one of deep interest to every student of Hebrew grammar, and 
of much importance, to say the least, to Hebrew philology and 
criticism. 

In introducing Prof. Ewald to speak for himself, I hope that 
I shall avoid the imputation of having misconstrued or misre- 

r resented htm. At least this cannot be charged upon me, imleas 
have purposely mistranslated him. This I have not dooe ; but I 
cannot assure tne reader, that I have always translated him with 
correctness. I can truly say, that I have done my best to ac- 
complish this ; but, I must add, that after being for a quarter of 
a century somewhat acquainted with the (Serroan hnguage, and 
after having read more in it, during that period of time, than I 
have in my mother-tongue, I am still unable in some cases to 
find out the meaning of Prof. Ewald to my satisfaction. I can 
only say, now and then, as Castalio says in his apologetic note 
for a version of a passage more literal than be was accustomed 
to make : ^* This 1 have translated literally, because I do not 
understand it." Perhaps as to one or two passages in Ewald, 
some one who can better strip ofif the Vmkidluiw which this 
celebrated writer throws over all his speculations than I can do, 
might feel disposed to question, whether I had gone so &r as 
to give even a Uteral version. Be it so then ; ' Si quis prospi- 
ciat — vaticinetur.' He shall do so at least with my liberty, and 
I will make — not my palinode^ for that would imply that I 
had consciously done wrong, or at least through negligence — 
but, my acknowledgements that there are depths in Ewald, down 
into whfeh I have not had address or skill or strength enough to 
plunge. 

But some things which I think I do understand,! have called 
in question. Ewald's views and mine, therefore, are both be- 
fore the reader ; and he has the opportunity of judging for him- 
self. This is all that justice and candour can demand ; and in 
the doing of this, I am satisfied that I have done my duty fairly. 
— M. S.] 



184 Hebrew Teneee. [Jan. 

Syntax or the' Verb, by Prof. Ewald. 

^ 470. Five forms of the Hebrew verb serve to designate 
time or tense ; viz. the two Modes [Praeter and Future tense],*" 
which at the same time also mark the distinction of Mode ; the 
same two Modes with Vav relative or conversive prefixed ; and 
the Participle. The Hebrew employs these forms, not ac- 
cording to tne method of distingubhins tenses in our languages, 
^to the spirit of which it is quite foreign), but still with a dis- 
tinction so definite that they cannot be exchanged for each 
other, while they plainly mark the principal difference of the 
tenses. 

[A] 

■ 

^ 471. The two Modes [Praeter and Future], c(xi»dered 
merely ia respect to their use as tenses, represent all action 
aoristicaUyf i. e. without reference to any other action or time. 
They differ firom each other in such a way, that the first Mode 
marks that which is comj^leted, definite^ and certain ; the 
second Mode that which is not completed^ indefinite^ and de* 
pendent on circmutances. Consequently they do not m them- 
selves mark a time which is definite, but are capable of being 
applied to any portion of time, provided that the leading idea 
designated by them be retained. 

^ 473. Hence the first Mode [Praeter] is employed, 
(1) To designate the past, when an action that has once taken 
place is simply presented, without any reference to any thing 
else ; e. g. ^ God iM*^ , created the world ;' tY^,9 nz] » what hoit 
thou done 7 

(2) To designate the present ; (a) When any particular ac« 
tion which has once taken place, may be again repeated ; e* g. 
n^im y^ta ricn, the wicked man despises Jehovah^ Ps. 10: 3. 
(b) Vvhen a state or condition began m some undefined past 
time, and one still sees the completion of it, [i. e. one sees that 
the same state or condition is still continued] ; e. g. ^X ' ^ 
know; ^ri*]5T, J remember, Num. 11: 5; anfij, he loves ; ^l^f 
he hates ; 12t» , he refuses, Ex. 10: 3 ; DN2J , he despises. Of 
course such a meaning [i. e. that of the present tense] is fire- 
quent in [the first mode of] intransitive Verbs. Different fixHn 

* The passages included in brackets, I have added for the sake of 
explanation. M. S. 



1838.] Hebrew Tenm. 136 

this are rarious methods of designating the Present^ as described 
in ^ 473, 2. ^ 483. 

(3^ To designate the future. This canhappen, only when 
the tning to be done is, in the mind of the speaker, already re- 
garded as being mrtuaUy completed, and consequently as tin* 
conditumal and certain, (as in German the Present is often put 
fer the Future) ; e. g. frequently in the declarations of the 
Divine Being, as "^nns , IwUl constitute, Gen. 17: 20. In the 
poets and prophets is the same usage, even in other parts of 
discourse, although this is not frequent ; e. g. VX^Vt , they shall 
perish, Ps. 10: 16. Mic. 1: 11. 

^ 473. The Second Mode [Future] has a very extensive 
use. 

(1) In accordance with the idea it designates of a thing Tiot 
yet accomplished and indefinite, it is employed, (a) To express 
a thing simply future ; e. g. n^n*;, he will be, . (6) To de- 
signate z future in time which is already past, when the con- 
text has reference in general to a time past ; in which case the 
idea of that which is past lies merely in the connection ; e. g» 
the first born Tjbtti *itj;n , who shotUd reign [qui regnaturus 
crat] in his stead.* (c) For the Futurum praeteritttm in de- 
pendent clauses ; e. g. nsfi*'' ■»3 a^'izn, could we have known 
that he wtmld say J (Like nafi<'» "^ w^i; , / knew that he 
would say), Gen. 43: 7, 26. 

(3) Out of the idea of that which is incomplete flows the 
idea of becoming, of origijiation, of taking rise. Hence^ 
(a) The second Mode designates an action not yet completed, 
but which is being completed or finished ; (we designate this 
by the Present). E. g. * Why are ye coming out,^ *1*3EI3, 1 Sam. 
17: 8. In this sense the second Mode comes near to occupy- 
ing the same ground with the first, which sometimes designates 
the Present. There is still, however, this distinction, that the 
first Mode speaks of a thing as already completed, and the 
second of that which is becoming completed ; e. g. nat^ y^nvq ^ 
whence art thou come 7 [as having already arrived] ; and ^'•fiJJj 
Han, whence dost thou come 7 [the action not being yet com- 
plete]. It should be noted, however, that the first Mode is 
not oilen employed in this way. 

(b) The second Mode also designates an origination or &e- 
coming so and so in time past, [i. e. a thing once present and 
becoming completed in time that is past]. The poets use this 
form fi^quently, (I) In order to transfer an action to the time 



136 Hebrew Tenses. [Jav. 

of its rise or origination,, when it was present ; (like the Latin 
Imperfect) ; as *i^^Pi TK, then ihou wast bam^ Job 38: 21. See 
also Job 3: 3, 11. 15: 7. (2) When in vivid narration they 
transfer past things to the present ; as ^ZTJ^lt he conducts me, 
Num. 23: 7. In prose the first of these two usages sometimes 
may be found ; as 9n: , we were hnowing^ Gen. 43: 7. Often, 
moreover, the second Mode stands connected in such cases 
with TM then; as n*ns^ TM, then sang he, Ei^. 15: 1. Jos. 8: 30. 
(c^ In particular, the idea of an action often repeated or 
continued, flows out of the preceding view of the second Mode ; 
for every action of this kind can be regarded as still continuing 
and yet to be renewed. So for the Present, •^5»; , dicUur, 
dicunt ; specially in comparisons, as fitlq^ *^^9,?' ^ <^ne is wont 
to uphold, Deut. 1: 31. So also for the Past, the idea of which 
flows merely out of the connection of the views of the speaker; 
as n3\c2 rT3'<fj 71^9'' , he was vfont to do yearly, 1 Sam. 1: 7. 
2: 19.' ' 

(3) From the meaning comprised in the second Mode arises 
further the idea of that which is indefinite, or dependent on 
circumstances Of feelings ; so that it answers to express the 
Subjunctive ; e. g. :ipfi{ 7V2, how cem 1 curse 1 Num. 23: 8. 
Even the Subjunctive past is expressed by it ; as ^n^Tb^^l, ^^ 
i ^n^ht have sent thee away, Gen. .31: 27. 

This mode is also employed in quoting the thoughts of ano- 
ther, and stands, (a) In mdirect quotation ; as ]i:}<iu$'^ r& nQM , 
he commands thai they shall return. Job 36: 10. So ^"VfiZ • • • 
19*3 f ^i^ he gatve order . . . that they should stand, Dan. 
1: 5. This method of speaking, however, is not firequent, as 
the general spirit of simple syntax would naturally lead us to 
suppose. (6) The second Mode is employed in uttering direct 
commands or uncondirional wishes ; e. g. b^fi^D, thou shah eat. 
Gen. 2: 16. \^9l fi6 , wAicA should not be done. Gen. 20: 9. 
84: 7. Lev. 7: 2.' So respecting the Past ; as ^yxr^, I would 
have died. Job 3: 11. 3: 16. 10: 18, 19. 

(4) More expressly still to designate this idea of command 
and wish, an abndged form of the second Mode arose, viz* the 
Jussive and bfiperative ; and still more expressly to render the 
wish or command emphatic, the paragogic n^ is appended to 
the Imperative. See 4 240—243. 

^474. According to these leading distinctions of meaning 
are the two Modes employed in a variety of ways with partis 
cks ; of these I shall treat particularly in the sequel. 



1888.] Htbnvf Ten$u. 131 

[B] 

0/ the tUH> modes toith Vav RVLATms or cowr^vtswn, the 

two relative historic forms, 

^ 475. From the simple copulative i (and) we must care* 
fully separate the more expressive particle which connects sen* 
tencesy and which at the same Ume includes m itself the idea 
of time or a sequency of ideas ; and answers, therefore, to the 
German und danriy und so^ dann^ so, so dassy [and then^ and 
sOf thefiy sOy so that]* The idea of advajice in respect to time 
is transferred to a sequency of thought. This Vav stands only 
in the beginning of a sentence, which holds such a relation to a 
preceding one ; as that in the junction of them a sequency of 
time or of thought is expressed. Thence the Vav mserted 
here may most appropriately be named Vav relative. This 
more significant Vav is also designated by a different mode of 
pronouncing it. In the fiill form in which it is commonly as- 



sociated with the second Mode, it sounds * 1 (vay) and [frequent- 

a] it alters the tone [or place of accent]. Before the first 
ode, (and elsewhere, ^ 591), it is sounded as is the simple 



copula (i), but it also [oftentimes] changes the tone, when 
placed before the first Mode, ^ 245. Thence both the Vav 
relauve and the Mode of the verb are so inseparably connected, 
that they cannot be dissevered without entirely losing their 
force ; and so too that the more intimate connection, such as 
M;i and he comesy is directly the opposite of the looser con- 
nection, tta . . . 1 and he came^ ^ 478. 

Vav relative with the second Mode. 

^ 476. (1) When Vav relative is placed before the second 
Mode, it involves in thb continuaUy the idea of hecomif^y of 
taking risey or originating; this union [o(\ with the Future] 
represents the sequency of the new becoming [of a thing, or] 
onginating of an action out of something which precedes. Con- 
sequently, (a) Sbce this Vav marks sequency of timcy it is most 
fi^quently employed to designate an action once done, but so 
that the first Mode stands as a correlative with it in a simple 
aoristic sense, e. g. ^n**^). n73M, he spake and. then it was, or and 
so it wasy it began to ie, it became ; noiDn^ V^^rif ^^^ sawest 
and then thou didst rejoice, or and so thou didst r^oice. And 
in this way is Vav relative constantly employed in the narration 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 18 



138 HOrtw Tenses. [Jau. 

of things that have already taken place, inasmuch as it contin- 
ues the new development and unfolding of the several succes- 
sions of events according to their natural sequences ; and this 
Vav relative is constantly continued, except where difficulties 
(^ 478) are interposed. 

More un frequently, and almost within the same limits as the 
first Mode, when used as an Aorist (^ ^'7^)> ^^^^ ^^^ ^^''"^ ^ 
employed to designate the Present and the Future; e. g. Gen. 
19 : 9. Nah. 1 : 4. Amos 9 : 6. Mic. 2 : 13. But this is made 
clear merely by the connection of the discourse. Possibly a 
second Mode may in this way precede an Aorist. 

(2) The same period of time [^Ae past] can the second Mode 
designate, when it is employed to mark the sequency of thought ; 
e. g. in making deductions or conclusions from that which pre- 
cedes, as Cjj'l, and so it continued^ Gen. 23 : 30. When thb 
Mode is employed (as it is), in completing what is necessary 
after a protasis of a sentence, n corresponds well to so, so that ; 
e. g. * What is man «i ny*3nn , that thou takest cognizance of him P 
Ps. 144: 3. Is. 51 : 12, 13. 1 Sam. 15 : 23. It is also era- 
ployed, when (after one or more words inserted which break 
in upon the tenor of the discourse) the writer returns again 
and resumes that tenor ; e. g. ^ and as to his concubine (and her 
name was Rumah,) fitv: DA 1^133, even she also hore children,^ 
Gen. 22 : 24. 

^ 477. This second species of Vav relative, also, as well as 
the first, must be preceded by some sentence or proposition, to 
which the sequency or succession of time has a relation or ref> 
erence. No book, nor discourse, nor separate narration, can be- 
gin with such a second Mode. (Respecting ^n^J see ^ 479). 
The form, however, [of that which precedes] is altogether a 
matter of indifference, if there only remains the idea of a 
Vav relative ; for any kind of verbal form may precede this, or 
a sentiment without a verb, or an abrupt clause. A verb or a 
sentence ma^ also precede this Vav relative which marks se^ 
quency of time^ whose own appropriate time is quite different ; 
e. g. < This man has come here as a stranger, ^B*>£j*.l9 and now 
he vnll be acting the part of a judge,' Gen. 19: 9. 2 Sam. 3: 
8. With particular frequency is this second Mode with Vav 
employed in the sense of No. 1 above, after words expressing 
limitation of time, and when this limitation (which fdrms a kind 
of abrupt clause thrown in) precedes the verb with 1 ; e. g. 
»^*l ''^^bj^n Di^^a, on the third day then lifted he up. Gen. 
22:4. 



1638.] Hebrew Tentee. 139 

^ 478. The reasons which ma^ prevent the employment of 
Vav relative [with the second Mode] in continued discourse, 
may be partly in the meaning, and partly in the^brm of the dis- 
course. Is an Aorist to be employed, then the Jirst Mode, 
according to common custom, is to be used in describing an ac- 
tion absolutely and simply past. Vav relative with the second 
Mode is therefore superseded, on account of the meanings 

(1) When propositions are introduced which involve no se^ 
jiiency of time or of meaning — when there is a Btandstill in the 
narration. For example, (a) When the foregoing verb is sim- 
ply explained by a new one, without any intervening particle, 
so that the same action is a second time virtually described ; as 
^Dbn . . . iTa*!?^! , then went they straight onwards — they trav^ 
ettedy 1 Sam. 6: 12. Gen. 21: 14. [Here the second verb is 
PraeteTy therefore, instead of Future], (h) When an explan- 
atory clause is thrown in (with the verb following its subject) 
by an insertion before it of i simply copulative, in which case 
the participle may be employed to mark continued action 
(^ 484) and the first Mode [Praeter] to designate momentary 
actions; e. g. ash bifit'iDi-nQi^^i , then he said — and Saul 
thought, i. e. Saul said and thought). Seldom is the first Mode 
employed immediately after the copula i [in such cases], in a 
mere additional explanation of a preceding clause, without any 
advance in the time or in the narration, as in Gen. 21: 25. 28: 
6 ; in mere synonymes, however, this is frequent, (c) When 
any inserted clause interrupting the main discourse is thrown 
in, which begins with another particle, viz. ^i&M , ^ , etc. ; by 
reason of which a sentence in reality new commences, so far as 
sequency of time is concerned, and in which Vav relative with 
the second Mode can no more stand, than in the beginning of 
a discourse, chapter, etc. (^ 477) ; e. g. !intt» ^3 l«"jjl, then 
feared thy, for they said, etc., 1 Sam. 4 : 7. The momen- 
tary actions which the first Mode designates, while standing in 
subordinate clauses with i or other particles, commonly are 
such as relate to an earlier period than that in the main narra- 
tive (the Pluperfect) ; which, however, is disclosed only by 
the nature of the case and the comparison of actions, etc. The 
language has no appropriate form for the Pluperfect, and em- 
ploys the first Mode to designate it, as the Greeks do th6 Aor- 
ists; e. g. ^ They buried Absalom, n^bfiibicraeti, now Absa- 
lom had taken, etc.,' 2 Sam. 18: 18; '< The 'place "TDV "i^^^ 
where he had stood,* Gen. 19 : 27. 



140 Hebrew Tenses. [Jah. 

(2) Vav relative with tbe second Mode cannot be employed 
by reason of tbe ybrm, when a word must stand before the verb. 
The proper meaning of this form [Vav relative with 2nd Mode] 
can be designated only when the connection is appropriate ; so 
that the verb cannot be in this Mode unless it stands with a 1 in 
its full significance at the beginning of a clause. If a word ne- 
cessarily stands before such a verb with i j then this i becomes 
a simple Vav capulativey and the Future becomes a simple 
Aorist, as in the beginning of a discourse, without any intimate 
connection with the preceding clause. 

(3) The second Mode with Vav relative cannot stand be- 
fore a clause, (a) Which begins with M^ , inasmuch as this 
must always precede the verb ; e. g. nrjfij tib\ *M^t^l , then he 
commanded^ out he wauid not. (b) When one or more words, 
on account of their importance or in the way of antithesis are 
set before the verb, it takes the first Mode : as ' then called he 
tbe dry land earth, but the collection of the waters he called 
seas, «"3i;"''"«"3R!3 , Gen. 1: 10. 

^ 479. When one or more words, which of themselves make 
a short sentence or even one of considerable extent, are insert- 
ed before a verb which in itself might be joined with Vav rela- 
tive after a train of thought, it frequently happens, that instead 
of the mere copula 1 [which in such a case might be expected 
according to the principles above developed], the formula "^ri^i , 
and then it was or happened, is employed [before such inserted 
words] ; and thus the force of the relation is preserved in such 
a way, that after this either Vav relative may follow, when 
some consequence is deduced in the next clause out of the pre- 
viously inserted clause, or (with less strict limitation) the Aorist. 
This last is more usually made by the Praeter with Vav pre- 
fixed, ^481. 

The formula ''n^jj. is made use of most commonly, (I) Be- 
fore some limitation of time expressed or implied, (a) Before 
some definite expression of a limitation ; as yq, ^nhM '^H'^i , and 
it came to pass after such things, (b) Before an implied lim- 
itation ; as Stk^o "^n^ji. , and it came to pass as he was comiw, 
Judg. 3: 26 ; njhri'iaa wn •'n-jT., and tt came to pass while he 
was bowing himself,' h. 37: 38*.'" 

(2) Less frequent is the use of ''51?? before other kinds of 
words, pardcularly when they do not intimate any thing but an 
obscure or very distant limitation of time ; as D'»*nMib3n "^n^l 
'•^IStl* ^^ ^ ^^^ to pass — the remnant — they even dispersed. 



1638.] Hebrew Temee. 141 

1 Sam. II: 11. 10: 11. Is. 92: 7. Onlj the late Hebrew 
writers put Wn\t the beginning of a book. 

Vav relative with thefint Mode. 

^ 480. The fiist mode [Praeter] with Vav relative is em- 
pk^ed when the idea is designated of an action which is cer- 
tain, and (if it is still to be done) so good as already completed, 
(^ 472). In this capacity it may answer to our Present. It 
is so employed, that the second Mode (used as an Aorist) must 
precede it, or at least must be implied m case the idea of rela- 
tion falls away [?] ; so that, since Vav relative of the second 
Mode [Future] is usually employed as a correlative to the first 
Mode, there arises, by such a usage, the most complete distinc- 
tion of both Aorists and relative forms of tense. Hence this 
Vav relative of the first Mode is found exactly in all cases where 
the second Mode as Aorist is employed, ^ 473.* Consequently, 

(1) In a description of the future ; where it is the more da/i- 
nite form, when compared with the Vav relative and second 
Mode ; as fitibsi ^\2 » he will go and then fight. It is not 
necessary, however, [to the employment of the first Mode with 
1 relative], that the future should be spoken of in the preceding 
clause, or that the second Mode should stand m it. Any form 
of the verb may precede, or a clause without a verb, and a con- 
clusion may be drawn relative to the future from the present ; 

as ' There is no fear of God here, ^y^^Xl » ^^ ^^ 0* ^' ^'^^^ 
this is so) they will kill me^ Gen. 20: 11. So, too, a conclu- 
sion from the past may be drawn ; e. g. ' This hath touched 
thy lipsy and so thy sin wUl depart^ noi . . . 9J3 , Is. 6: 7. 

(2) Vav relative with the first Mcxle is employed for the 
Present^ and is particularly frequent in respect to actions repeat- 
ed or continuing ; as ' he fiees before the lion and faUs upon 
the bear,' :^a©i . . . D»r , Amos 5: 19. Nah. 3: 12. Jpb 7: 4 

i where the proper alteration of tone is wanting). Hence this 
orm is iirequent in describing actions of the pasty which are 
continued or often repeated. Indeed this is one of the princi- 
pal uses of this form, and separates it sufficiently firom the sec- 
ond Mode as described in ^ 476 ; e. g. * A mist ^JJJttJrn n^y; 

* I have translaled this as literally as I oould ; I do not profeas to 
ondentand it. M. S. 



143 Hebrew Temet. [Jam. 

ascended (was continually going up) and then U watered die 
earth,* 

Everyjform of the verb may also precede this use of the first 
Mode ; so that not only the second Mode, but the participle 
when it marks a state or condition during which something else 
was done or was in a particular state (^ 484), and then this, 
with the particular things involved in it, is further described ; 
as in Gen. 2: 10. 37: 7. Jos. 6: 13. Is. 6: 3, 8. 1 Sam. 17: 20. 
So too the second Mode with Vav relative may precede, inas- 
much as the description of things past often includes the idea of 
things frequently repeated, or in some particular cases even ren- 
ders prominent the idea of repetition ; as in 1 Sam. 1: 3. 7: 15. 
16: 23. Gen. 80: 41, 42. 38: 9. The later writers, however, 
began to commingle this form with the second Mode, when the 
discourse related to the past ; see Gen. 87: 7. Ruth 4: 7. Job 
1: 4, 5.t 

(3) This relative first Mode follows the second Mode when 
it stands in the sense of the C^unctive, and thus employed it 
describes merely the necessary and certain consequences of the 
first action ; as ^"STti H^'^ti , that he may not come and then 
smite me, Gen. 32: 12. Consequently this form may be em- 
ployed, 

(4) After the Imperative and Jussive, when the force of the 
command ceases, and the subsequent description merely relates 
what followed as a consequence ; as in*i3j3^ la 9dD , smite Am, 
and then do thou bury him ; rin»Nn "^3? , speaky so that thou 
shah sayj 1 K. 2: 31. Lev. 1:'2.' 'Gen" 41 : 34—36. But if 
the force of the command or wish still continues, the Jussive or 
Imperative form is also continued, and this either with or with* 
out Md- . 

^481. Finally the first relative Mode is altogether like the 
second Mode, in several respects as it regards external signifi- 
cancy or position. 

(1) It cannot stand in the beginning of a sentence or clause ; 
but still it is indifferent what the form of the preceding verb or 
clause may be (comp. <^ 477). An unfinished clause may pre- 
cede, from which a deduction is made by the verb in the rela« 

* But here the Future indicates action just as often repeated aa the 
other marked by the Praeter. The example proves quite too much 
for the author. M. S. 

t [Geneaia then is a laU writing !] 



1838.] EArw 7mMi« 148 

tire 'first Mode ; m l^^^QI '^Vpi Vm\ $ became of iky name^ 
i. e. because thy name is so great, so wiU thou forgive^ Ps. 25: 
11. A clause designatiDg time may also precede ; as y\9 
Oljrn^ , at evening (when it is evening) then shall ye know, 
Ex/l6: 6, 7. 17: 4. Gen. 3: 5. 

(2) The Aorist is managed here, on account of either mean- 
ing or form altogether in a manner like that of the relative se- 
cond Mode (^ 478) ; and since this relative first, mode, em- 
ployed as an Aorist, is a correlative of the second Mode, so this 
latter is regularly and for the sake of complete correspondence 
always employed after it [the first Mode] as an Aorist. In the 
beginning of a sentence the first Mode relative sometimes stands 
to designate the Future, ^ 472 ; but when this is so done, the 
second Mode as Aorist cf coarse follows; e. g. Gen. 17: 12. 
Deut. 15: 6. Only the poets (according to <^492) employ the 
first Mode for the Juiuref and this but seldom ; as in Job 5: 20. 
Is. 11: 8. If however the discourse turns upon a thing, which, 
in comparison with other future things may be regarded as pasty 
then the first relative Mode may be employed. 

(3) In cases where '*n'»T. may be employed, (see ^ 479), 
>^^71 may also be employed ; e. g. before limitations of time, as 
tt^nil Di*3 :n^ni , and tt tutll come to pass at that time. So 
before particles serving to mark designations of time ; as &M n^iil, 
and it shall come to pass (/^. Or if the discourse has respect 
to the pastf then render, so oft as ; Num. 21 : 9. Gen. 38: 9. 
And so, also, before any words which indicate limitations of 
time ; e. g. Gen. 4: 14, and it shaH be (n^rri) that every one 
who findeth me, etc., = whenever one finos me, Ex. 18: 22. 
In other cases likewise ; e. g. Hos. 2: 1. Deut. 7: 12. Is. 3: 
24. 7: 22. 

[C] 

Participle or relative Tense* 

^ 482. Since the Participle has its origin in the verb, but 
its j^brm and immediate signification from the adjective, so it is 
distinguished, when employed as a predicate with the significant 
cy and construction of a verb, from the Modes [Praeter and 
Future], inasmuch as it presents an action rather as continuing^ 
established, enduring, while the Modes designate merely the 
practising or development of an action. Hence the Parttciple 
is the tense of enduring condition or state ; which is explicuile 



144 Hebrew Tensu. [Jav. 

on the ground of its reference to another time present m thought 
or words ; it is the relative Tense. It is accordingly employed, 

^ 483. (1) Only in sentences, when the condition is evident 
from circumstances to the hearer ; viz. {a) For the Present 
relative f in respect to an action still continumg ; as lAh "^DbK , 
I [am] goings or / go at the present moment, Juag. 17: 9. 
Often is nrrt prefixed, in order to mdicate the Cfmtinui^ state; 
as li^?nn ^'»h« nan , behold ! thy brother is aTtgry^ Gen. 27: 
42. l^he Pigrdciple is distinguished, when used for the Pres- 
ent, from the second Mode employed in the like way (^ 473), 
inasmuch as the first mdicates simply the continuance of a thing, 
action, etc*, while the second indicates the renewal or repeti- 
tion of it, or the contmually originating state.* 

{b) For the Future relative^ in respect to an action which 
one has already determined to do, and so that the future is in- 
<dicated in this way as speedily to follow the present moment ; 
ic. g. fiWhujTj wrjaw, we are about to destroy ^ Gen. 19: 13, 14. 
Often here, also, with njn preceding. 

(c) For the Praeter relative ; which, however, must be 
evident to the hearer from other description of the past ; and 
therefore rarely used in this sense when placed alone, e. g. Gen. 
41: 17, l^y ^^2T\, behold ! 1 was standings i. e. during the 
dream and this representation. 

^ 484. (S) The Participle expresses, in connection with 
other acti<»s, an action continuing during those other actions. 
Therefore, 

(a) In connection with a description of the past, it expresses 
the Pr-aeter relative. In such a condition it can be joined to 
the preceding •clause with a Vav (and) prefixed ; taibi ^ra 
:i!g^, they came and Lot [was] settling down^ i. e. settled down 
at that time, Gen. 19: 1. TTien Rebecca hastened and drew 
[water], and the man was astonished^ ^%^^n. ^'^^.7\ > i* e. con- 
tinued to be astonished while she did this,*(jen. 24* 21. 

The state, moreover, and the longer time within which the 
following action was done, may be expressed by the Participle, 
so that the following clause is attached to the Participle by a 
Vav relative, (unless where pathos of sentiment prevents this, 
^ 478) ; e. g. t]'»b5h spja , tny sons were eatings then came a 
windy etc. Job 1 : 18, 19*. 1 Sam. 2 : 13. To the participle 

* In later Hebrew, the use of the second Mode in this way went 
into desuetude; e. g. Eath. d: 18^ 14 



18380 Hebrew Tenses. 145 

thus employed 1^9, duringy whilst y continuing^ is often attached. 
Job 1; 16—18. 

lo like manner actions that continue while other things take 
place, may be designated by the Participle in connection with 
niz^N, '^; as in Gen. 47: 14. 39: 6. Seldom does the Parti- 
ciple stand separately in such a sense ; as in Deut. 5: 5. Judg. 
18: 1. 

(&) In like positions in descriptions of the future, it stands for 
the Future relative ; as in 1 Sam. 10: 8. 1 K. 1: 14. 

(c) Also for the Present ; as in Ps. 35: 5, 6. 

^ 485. The language first begins, and that at a late period, 
to put before the Participle, when it was employed in respect 
to the past, the verb :i^n ; and when respecting the future, the 
verb rt;ri|; ; for in this way the time was more definitely desig- 
nated, and a kind of independent tense was formed. So when, 
according to ^ 484, (a) The Participle stands connected with 
other actions ; as Joshua C}*iab rrri was clothed and standings 
and then he said, Zech. 3: 3. Job 1: 14. Seldom does this 
• happen, when the participle has a subsequent position and 
stands more alone ; as in 2 Sam. 3 : 6. (b) Even without 
such a connection, the Participle is employed to mark an action 
long continuing during a specified time ; as t3^^^^ ^VT^ 9 V^ 
have [long and constantly] provoJcedy Deut. 9: 7. 22: 24. But 
in narration conducted in this way, by this independent kind of 
tense, it is sufiicient that the verb n^n has been once produced, 
at the beginning of a paragraph ; 1 K. 5: 1. 

^ 486. From this use of the Participle as a tense, difieis 
entirely the use of it as a noun ; (even as a noun with the 
article or m the construct state, although it may also be con- 
strued as a Verb). It may be a simple noun, as pB':, a desert' 
er ; or it may be in apposition with a noun ; or it may depend 
on a noun in the construct state. Used thus as a noun, it in- 
cludes the idea of a subject and a verb in itself; and therefore 
is employed in cases where *^*«DN with the verb might be em- 
ployed. Specially is it employed in appositiony where it at- 
taches itself to the noun more easily than the verb. Since there 
is properly no distinction of time in it, so it may be used re- 
specting any time ; e. g. the Present ; the Praetery Gen. 27: 
33. 1 Sam. 4: 8. II: 9« Geo. 19: 14 ; seldom the Future, as 
Ex. 11:5. 2K. 3: 27. 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 19 



146 Hebrew Tenses. [Jan. 



Rescabks on the preceding AcconiTT OF TBS Hebbew Tenses, bt 

M. STlf AST. 

Let us DOW endeavour to make as brief a recapitulation of 
the leading ideas exhibited in these remarks of Ewald, as will 
consist with doing justice to the author and with perspicuity. 

(1) His main position is, that the so called Hebrew tenses 
were not primarily desired at all to mark tense or time, bat 
only modes of action. 

This is more explicitly avowed in the preceding part of his 
Grammar ; where (in ^ 193) he says : " Out of the roots of 
verbs the [Hebrew] language does not construct so many forms 
as ours for the designation of tenses and modes. Ct has, besides 
the Participle and the In6nitive (both of which belong, in re- 
spect to form, to nouns, ^ 218 — ^ 223), only two distinct forms 
[the Praeter and Future] ; and these maJce rather the differ- 
ence of MODE than of tense ; and hence this should be named 
the first and second Mode.'^ 

(2) The first Mode, as thus defined, marks (in itself aoristv- 
caUy in the widest sense of the word) that which is complete, 
definite^ and certain. The secona Mode (aenistic m the 
like way) designates that which is incomplete^ indefinite, and 
dependent on circumstances. 

On these propositions I have some remarks to make ; but I 
reserve them, as also any others which I may have occasion to 
make, until I shall have finished the present recapitulation. 

(3) The first mode (Praeter), in conformity with its fun- 
damental and modal meaning, designates, (a) The Past, in an 
absolute and unconditional manner, and without reference or 
relation to any particular thing, (b) The Present, when an 
action before commenced may ana probably will be still re- 
peated, (c) The Future, only when the thing is regarded as 
completed or as altogether and unconditionally certain. 

(4) The second mode (Future), in conformity also with 
its general nature, designates, (a) That which is future or yet to 
come, in the strict sense, (b) Also (by transition of thought 
into the past), that which was future in such past time. {c\ In 
like manner, the PauUhpost Future, or Futurum praetentum, 
is designated by the second Mode. 

But this is not all. •Inasmuch as the seamd Mode designates 
the idea of that which is incomplete or unfinished, it is c(»ise- 



1838.] Hebrew Temes. 147. 

quently adapted to express any thing which b coming into 
being or taking its rise, or is (as we say) in a forming state* 
Hence as an action now doing is incomplete^ the second Mode 
is adapted to express, {d) The Present, (e) The mind may 
look back on things that were being done, etc., in time past, 
and the second Mode b employed to represent them in that 
state, (like the Latin Imperfect). (/) As kindred to this, and 
quite analogous to it, is the case of often repeated action, which 
is conceived of as a thing that has taken place and will again 
take place. The expression of this, therefore, is appropriate to 
the second Mode. 

Once more ; that which is indejined, that which is depen- 
dent on feelings, wishes, circumstances, etc., belongs appropri- 
ately to the second Mode. Consequently it is employed, (g) 
to express the sense of the Coryunctive or Subjunctive mode. 
(A) Ais a ramification of the same general idea, the second 
Mode also designates the Optative^ or that which is hortatory, 
desiderative, jussive, or permissive. 

Such is the wide ground that the Praeter and Future occupy 
in their simple state, according to the views of Ewald. But, 
(5) There is another state in which the usage of the Hebrew has 
placed them both, without the formality of a different mode pf 
declension. This is by prefixing Vav relative to them ; to the 
Future by Vav with Pattahh and Daghesh following it, to the 
Praeter by Vav with the usual conjunction-vowel, i. e. Sheva. 
This gives rise to a great variety of expression in both tenses, 
or (to speak with Ewald) in both Modes. 

In ^ 244, Ewald has stated, that Vav prefixed to the Future 
by Pattahh and followed by Daghesh forte is entirely different 
from 1 (and) the usual conjunction. In <$» 245 he has affirmed 
the same, as to this difference from the common i , respecting 
Vav before the Praeter. In his larger Grammar he gives his 
solution of the difficulty which apparently arises from the punc- 
tuation of the Vav being so different in these two cases. He 
there states (p. 539), that the Vav of the Future (*i) arose 
from the verb n^ni , so that iri^^i is equivalent to, or the same 
as iPq^ ^Vl] 9 ^^ *^ ^^'''"^ to pass [that] he would ivrite = he 
wrote, lie old root of rt^n he makes to be '»^rj ; then by 
syncope we have "^n ; and then ^^'] is easily abridged into 
^1 s=-2 . In this way the Vav prefixed to the Future received 
its shape and meanbg ; for the Future with this prefixed be- 
comes a compound form, and, like the verb of exbtence with 



148 Hebrew Tense$. [Jan. 

the Future tense in Arabic and Syriac, expresses the meaning 
o( the past, Ewald, however^ does not admit this analogy, be- 
cause the Vav conversive in Hebrew also retains in itself a cop- 
ulaiive sense {and)^ as well as a conversive one. 

But there are other difficulties here, which this theory does 
not explain, and which will be mentioned in the sequel. 

(6) Vav relative with the Future always refers to a 
new rise and originating of an action out of that which precedes. 
It signifies, (a) A sequency of time, (viewing it ^spast time), 
— a sequency to something that preceded it and that is aoristi- 
cdUy narrated. But when introduced thus, it may go on suc- 
cessively indicating things that followed one another, (b) It 
may also designate the Future and the Present ; but this must 
be shewn by the tenor of the discourse, and lies not in the na- 
ture of the form, (c) It indicates a sequency in respect to 
thought ; and so it designates a consequence that follows from 
premises, or an apodosis, or a resuming of the thread of narra- 
tion which has been interrupted by a clause thrown in. 

(d) It must always be preceded by some clause ; for it has 
a sense that must always be relative. It matters not, however, 
what that preceding clause is, whether a verb, a clause without 
one, or a detached sentiment. 

From this view it follows, (a) That where sequency is not 
indicated by the sense, this form of the Future is excluded. 
Other tenses are then employed. Of course, (/) This future 
is excluded in a subordinate clause thrown in, which does not 
advance the narration. So, (g) When such clauses begin with 
•n^K , ''s , etc., which constitute as it were a new sentence, in- 
serted not in the regular succession of the discourse, (h) When 
any word in the sentence or clause must stand before the verb, 
this form (relative Future) is excluded ; of course titb (which 
dl^siys precedes) excludes it. But in order to preserve the 
power of employing the conversive or relative Future in such 
cases, ^11. {and it came to pass) is often inserted before cir- 
cumstances thus thrown in, e. g. before limitations of time, in 
some cases before other words, and then the narration may go 
on again with the relative Future. 

(7) Vav relative with the Praeter is employed when 
things certain are designated ; or things which (if they are yet 
to happen) are looked upon as certain. In this case the Fu- 
ture precedes as Aorist ; and then, the relative Praeter desig- 
nateSj (a) The Future, {b) The Present, specially in contin- 



1888.] Hebrew Tenses. 149 

ued or often recurring actions. Here the verb in any form, or 
a participle, may precede, (c) The Conjunctive mode, (d) 
The relative Praeter stands after the Imperative mode, in order 
to designate the action which follows the command. 

(8) or both the relative Tenses it may be said ; (a) That 
they cannot stand in the beginning of a discourse, paragraph, 
etc. {b) Of the relative Praeter we may also say, that when 
it precedes a Future, and is itself used in a juture sense, then 
the Future tense which follows must be taken as an aoristic 
tense, (c) Instead of ^rjli (see ^ 479) employed so as to pre- 
serve the continuity of relative Futures, n^n] [and it shall comt 
to pass) is used in like circumstances, i. e. before clauses deno^ 
ting limitation of time, etc. 

(9) Pakticiple or relative Tense. The generic sense 
denotes something as continuing^ established, enduring ; while 
the Modes express the developmentitself of action, etc. Hence 
the Participle is employed to designate, 

(a) The relative Present. (6) The relative Future ; one 
which is speedily to commence— like the Latin Future in -itM. 
(c) The relative Praeter. (d) An action continuing while oth« 
ers were doing or continuing ; or a state or condition which last- 
ed while other things took place, (e) The Participle sometimes 
joins the verb of ex'istence with it, and thus forms a kbd of 
independent tense by itself. 

My object b making this summary has been, to facilitate the 
understanding of the whole subject as represented by Ewald. 
But on reviewing it, I cannot promise myself that the reader 
will not be puzzled, at times, and find it cCfficult to satisfy him- 
self precisely in respect to the object aimed at. If so, I can 
only say, that he will not probably be more perplexed than I 
have been, in reading and endeavouring to understand and trans- 
late Ewald's remarlu. He has so much of tenuous theory and 
of hair-splitting distinctions, and withal is so negligent as to his 
style, that it needs a mind more like his own than mine is, to 
comprehend, certainly to be satisfied with, all the d$angiasig 
which he makes. 

But now to the substance of the matter itself. I begin my 
remarks by observing, that, for the most part, he has only 
brought before us old things with new names, or well known 
fiicts with new and sometimes ingenious theories to account for 
tbem. This seems to be the tendency of bis whole grammati- 



150 Hebrew Temei. [Jxir. 

cal woriE. Even in his Fotmenlehre, u e. that part of his Gnun* 
mar which has respect to the forpu of the different parts of 
speech in the Hebrew language, he has departed from all pre- 
ceding grammarians — departed so widely, and in some cases 
(as it seems to me) so arbitrarily, that I believe a beginner in 
Hebrew would find it next to imposible, by the aid of his Gram- 
mar only, to attain to a competent knowledge of the Hebrew 
forms. Many an interesting, curious, and acute remark he 
makes, indeed, in the course of his work;. but what is new, 
striking, or curious, is not always imtructive. 

It will be seen, by an attentive perusal of the preceding sum- 
mary, that Ewald has represented, in one way or another, each 
of the five forms of the Hebrew verb which he brings to view, as 
occasionally designating the Present, the Past, and the Future ; 
i. e. he has represented these forms, after all> as being aorUH^ 
colly employed, in the widest sense of this word. What more 
or less had Gesenius and others done before him ? 

Yet he begins by telling us, that in the proper sense of the 
word the Hebrew has no tense. T^e so called Praeter and 
Future were originally nothing more, he says, than Modes; 
the first designating that which is comphte^ definite^ and cer- 
tain ; the second, £at which is incomplete^ indefinite^ and ie- 
pendent on circumstances. Why the same things could not in 
substance be said of the Greek Praeterites and Futures, I do 
not know ; nor has he given us any specific reason for making 
a distinction here between the Hebrew and other languages. 
That which is Juture is of course in some sense incomplete ; it 
b ako, from the nature of the case, oftentimes indefinite, and 
oflen likewise it must be d^endeiu on circumstances. . The 
Futures proper, in all languages must express ideas belonging 
to this category ; nor do I see how they would be Futures, 
unless they did. But more of this in the sequel. 

Why then shall we call the Praeter and Future of Hebrew 
verbs, the first and second Mode 1 Mode is technically de- 
fined to mean, in grammar, the m€mner of representing an ac* 
turn or being. Now if the Hebrew tenses are to be called 
Modes because they do this merely in some sense, then the 
Greek tenses must be called Modes for the like reason, and all 
tenses in any language must be called Modes ; for all tenses 
and every tense necessarily express, along with time, some mode 
of action. Certainly they must do this, unless we say that 
they do not express action at all. But as we cannot say this 



1838.] Hebrew Tenm. 151 

of any verb, in any of its phases, so, it being coticeded that ac- 
tion is expressed, some mode of it must also be expressed, for 
otherwise we must make it out, that definite action can exist 
and be expressed, and yet a mode of it at the same time not be 
designated ; which would be merely saying, that an action 
took place, but not in any mode or manner. 

This reasoning, of course, will not apply to the Infiniiint 
Mode ; for this, from its very nature, is a nomen verbcde^ and 
is designed merely to express action without any limitation. 

When grammarians say, therefore, that Mode is the manner 
of representing action or beings they do and must have some 
spec^ limitations in view, within which this definition will be 
found intelligible and distinctive. What are these ? They re- 
fer, I apprehend, solely to distinction between podtive and 
conditional assertions, e. g. in Greek the Indicative Mode is 
declarative and positive, and th^ Subjunctive and Optative are 
conditional in some sense or other ; or else they refer to what 
is jussivcy e. g. the Imperative Mode in distinction' from those 
just named ; or finally, they make an absolute declaration of 
simple action limited neither by time nor person, as e. g. the 
Infinitive. The same Modesy in this sense of Mode, may of 
course exist in the passive vdce as in the active ; and accord- 
ingly we find tbem there in Ghreek, Latin, etc. 

It is manifest from this brief view of Modesy that time and 
person are merely accidental to them ; some have them, viz. 
the Indicative, etc., and some have them not, viz. the Infinitive. 
These may accompany the Modes ; for the most part they do ; 
but they do not constitute an essential part, nor strictly speaking 
any part, of what properly belongs to Mode in the sense of 
grammarians. 

Let us now inquire, whether Prof. Ewald has said any thing 
to shew us, why the Praeter and Future should be called 
Modes 1 Is it that the one declares conditionaUy and the other 
positively 1 Not at all. Both are equally positive in the great 
majority of cases, and both are occasionally conditional. Both 
declare things past, present, and fiiture ; and both occasionally 
relate tbem as conditional and incomplete. His own statement 
shews this. The main distinction on which the actual discrep- 
ancy of Modes really rests, is not applk^ible, therefore, to this 
case. At least if it be so, it may be as wcU applied to the 
Greek tenses as to the Hebrew. 

I take for granted, that no speculative philosophy can ^ew 



153 Hebrew Tente$. [Jan. 

us any probability, that the Hebrews Or any other nation ever 
employed verbs in all their drSerent forms, without reference to 
teme, i. e. without btending to designate tense thereby. An 
action as conceived of most simply by the mind in its uninstnict- 
ed state, is viewed either as past^ present^ or future. Hence 
the verbs of nearly all languages designate each of these by dis* 
tioct forms. Even the Hebrew is wont to express the simple 
present, where the past and future are not at all regarded, by 
the use of an active participle ; which might be named (as it 
has been) the present tense. 

If Prof. Ewald should ask me here, how it comes about that 
die Hebrew has no Modes, i. e. has none on the supposition, 
that it has tenses in the usual sense of that word ; my answer 
would be, that the distinction of Modes is evidently a later and 
less obvious thing than the distinction of tense. In many Ian* 
guages the Modes are not expressed at all, or scarcely or verpr 
imperfectly so, by the forms of verbs, but are made by adjecti- 
dous particles, or helping verbs, which express the sense needed. 
It would seem, therefore, that there is less need of mode than 
of tense ; or at any rate, that such has been the feeling of man- 
kind in the formation of many languages. 

If this view b correct, then it follows that the theory of 
Prof. Ewald is, in its own nature, an improbable one. The 
need of .tense would be sooner thought of and felt, than the 
need of mode ; and it is therefore more probable in itself that 
modes were left undistinguished m the Hebrew language, than 
that tenses were. 

Nor are we confined to a speculative view of the case. It is 
easy to produce examples, and many of them too if time were 
allowed, in which the distinction of time is plainly and definite- 
ly the great object in view, in the use of the Praeter and Fu- 
ture. Take, tor example, Is. 46 : 4. Jehovah is introduced 
by the writer as saying : ' Who hath carried them [the house of 
Israel] from the womb, who hath held them up from their birth ?' 
In the sequel he answers the question : M^fij *^3fifti *^n^3? '^Sfit, 
I have done [this], and I will do it, ox I vnU uphold them. 
So again in v. 11. IrijlpjfijPjfit •Tin:^; sjsjj'agjqw'^nna'^, JAa«e 

fomised aiid I will accomplish itf I have formed the plan and 
wiU carry it into execution. Here plainly the emphatic 
pdnt of contrast is the past and the future. God has done 
the one thing in time past, and this is the pledge that he wiU 
do the correspondent tmng b timejuture. 



1808.] Hthrew Ten$e$. 158 

Let us return &r a moment here, to the consideration of 
Prof. Ewald's view of the original nature and design of the 
second Mode, i. e. of the soKsalled Future. It designates, says 
be, ' what is ineompletef indefinitey and dependent on circum- 
itanceiJ Now he is safe as to the first of these allegations, in- 
deed, for a tense which designates the proper future, must, it 
is sufficiently obvious, designate what is incomplete. But as to 
indefimie here, i. e. in the examples above produced, or the 
dependent (m circumstances, what is there to support his view 
oTthe subject? / have done this thing, i. e. upheld the peo- 

?le of Israel, is no more definite, than J vnU uphold them again. 
\e execution of this promise, a promise uttered by the Al- 
mighty Grod — is not dependent on circumstances,— certably 
not upon any that we know or can even imagine. The prom- 
ise involves the idea, that no circumstances shall be such as to 
prevent the fiilfilment of it. 

What is true of the Future in the two passages above quoted, 
is equally true of thousands of Futures in the Old Testament ; 
it is true of nearly all c^the unnumbered Futures converted in- 
to a Praeter sense by Vav. No imaginable distinction can be 
made in respect to this class of verbal forms, on the ground of 
iandefinUeness or uncertainty or dependence on circumstancesy 
and the Praeter when employed in its simple aoristic and his- 
toric sense. 

Does any reader doubt this ? Then let him open any where 
in cfae Hebrew Bible and make the experiment, for this is the 
only satkfactory way of testing such matters. We will turn 
to the first chapter of Genesis ; for all concede that the Penta- 
teuch, be it written sooner or later, is one of the finest of all 
the examples of classksal Hebrew style to be found in the Old 
Testament. 

In Gen. 1: 3, we have the first example of a converted Fu- 
ture in ni^fit"! , and [God] said. Now this is no more condi- 
tional, nor indefinite, nor dependent on circumstances, nor even 
mcomplete, than when in the preceding verse, the writer savs : 
^ The earth nn'^rr was without form, etc.' The sense here has 
not one of the attributes ascribed to the second Mode by Prof. 
Ewald, excepting that it stands in a sequency of thought and of 
time. Of this, more hereafter. Let us confine ourselves, for 
the present, entirely to the examination of the preceding alleged 
attributes of the second Mode. 

Pass on down the page. Verse 3d gives us fin;*) , and [God] 
Vol. XL No. 99. 20 



154 Hebretff Ten$e$* [J Air. 

saw; bl^llfOnd he corned a se^foraitum. Verse 4, tl*^;> i » 
and he called. Here in this last instance we have, m the cor- 
responding clause which follows it, an instructive exhibition of 
the true design of that form of the Future tense in question, 
i. e. when it is employed with Vav. The two clauses of the 
verse stand thus : ' And God called (fi^'^R!!) to the light— day, 
to the darkness he called (M^lj^) night.' JNothing can be more 
plain in this case, than that the certamty, the definiteness, and 
the sequencyy of both these forms of tne same verb here, are 
precisely the same ; and the only reason that Ewald gives, in 
such cases, why the Praeier form is chosen (as in respect to 
MnjP here) is, that it is preceded by a word or words (as here 

byt^nbi). 

We proceed with the converted Futures. In Gen. 1 : & 
(besides those already stated), Wj twice. In v. 6, *^T^^'^\ ; 
V. 7, lD?»i , b«il, •»n;i; v. 8, vn'?f^% •»n';j twice ; v. 9, wn , 
■nqfi^^l; V. 10, «'3p,^.li «^S1» Aii so the reader may ^ on, 
through the whole chapter, nay, through the whole Pentateuch 
and the whole Hebrew Bible, and find numberless examples of 
the same tenor, i. e. plain, absolute, unconditional, unlimited, 
unequivocal declarations of facts in time past, and simply Au- 
ioric aoristsy for aught that I can possibly see, precisely of the 
like tenor with the Greek Aorists, or other Praeterited used in 
their room. 

I am aware of the reply which Prof. Ewald would make to 
this statement. He would appeal to his account of the relative 
Future, i. e. the Future with Vav conversive as exhibited in 
^ 476 above, and say, that it is a Future relative and not abso- 
lute, which is indicated by such forms, viz. a Future compared 
with something in the narration which preceded it, and not 
with the time when the writer is composing his narration. 
The whole took place in time past, as it relates to the latter 
point of time ; but the thing designated by the relative Future 
was a proper sequent of that which he had before mentioned, 
and so was fiiture to that. 

The fact I will, for the sake of discussion, allow. Whether 
this sequency is in truth always indicated by the so-called coft- 
versive Future, as Ewald seems to assert, is a question to which 
we may hereafter come. For the present we will allow the 
relative future sense ; for in most cases it is undoubtedly a mat- 
ter of fact. 

The fair question now will be, Whether the future form, 



1838.] Hebrew Tenses. 155 

tvithowt this Vay oonyersive, does also at times convey a Ptae- 
terite sense like that of the relative Future, and is employed 
where the Praeter might have been used to all intents and pur- 
poses with the same significancy ? 

* To the law and the testimony ;' we cannot settle this point 
on the ground of theory. Pass on then in the narration to 
chap. 2. v. 10 : ' And a river issued from Eden to water the 
garden, and from thence nn©^ (Niph. Future), it was dividedy 
rr^nj and became four sources.' Now here is the Future tci^A- 
out Vav, which designates the past time ; and here too is a 
sequency, not of time, perhaps, but at least of idea. The issu- 
mg of the river from the garden preceded its division, (we might 
say, in point of time, but at all events we must say) in point of 
fact, and in the order of idea und of narration. Accordingly 
fr^M"! , a simple Praeterite with i (and) before it, is conjoined 
with the Future form Ty^'] , has relation to the same subject or 
Nominative with that form, and designates the same point of 
time, because the division itself made the four sources which 
the narration mentions. 

Pass we on to V. 25 of the same chapter ; ^ And the man 
and his wife were both naked, *i;rh^ian'j ^h\ and they were not 
ashamed. Now here is another sequency both of time and of 
iact. The nakedness precedes ; the unblushing condition of a 
state of perfect innocence is consequent ; and, so far as the 
matter before us is concerned, we must say, it is necessarily 
connected with the former. Now in the clause which imme- 
diately precedes the simple Future, we have a relative Future, 
^''rt'^l; while here, the 1 before the Future is omitted. Here, 
moreover, is no uncertainty, no indefiniteness ; it is a simple 
declaration of fact, and, for aught that I can see, differs not in 
sense at all from what it would signify if the writer had said, 

Take another instance from v. 6 of the same chapter: ^ And 
a mist Tfzj^l went up from the ground, etc' Then follows in 
the next dause, f^jjttjni , * and watered the face of the ground.* 
Here is a Praeter again, with a simple copula (i) before it, 
arranged in the same series of thought, and under the same 
condition and circumstances as the Future mJ;?,^. There is no 
more uncertainty in the one than in the other; no more indefi- 
niteness in the one than in the other ; and no more of sequency 
in the one than in the other, i. e. both are sequendes in respect 
to time and in the ideas of the writer. 



156 Hebrew Temei. [Jar. 

Let us go, for a moment, into other books. In 2 K» 13: 90 
the writer says : ^ And the bands of Moab ^fiia; came up to or 
invaded the land.' In the preceding clause are two Futures 
with Vav conversive, designating the common historic Praeter 
sense. The narration which eidiibits %fi(l^ is of the same tenor 
with them^ and stands in like circumstances. 

But perhaps the later Hebrew of this book will be objected 
to. Let us go then into Ps. xviii., and see how the usage is 
there. In v. 6 seq. the writer says : * In my distress ^'iJi^ I 
called upon Jehovah, to Jehovah :^1^K did I raise my cty, 
972T&\ he heard my voice from his temple, and my cry fi(3n came 
into his ears. Then did the earth shsJce and tremble, [two 
Futures with Vav conversive], and the foundations of the 
mountains ^iTan*^ trembled. V. 9, rt^aj there went vp [simple 
Praeterite] a smoke through his nostnls, and a fire fix>m his 
mouth ^d^n devoured^ [simple Future in the same circum- 
stances as the preceding Praeter], coals Icindled ^"^^^J [Praeter] 
by it.' Then follow four Futures with Vav conversive. V. 12, 
T)'^l [Future without Vav] ^ he made darkness his hiding place, 
etc' 

Now nothing can be plainer than that the Praeter, the sim- 
ple Future, and the Future with Vav, are all employed here in 
simple narration of the past, in the same way and without any 
even imaginable distinction as to dependence, succession, con- 
ditionality, definiteness, or any thing else of the like nature. It 
is manifestly a simple, aoristic, Praeterite narration. All theo- 
retical speculations which lead us to adopt the conclusion, that 
the distinctions of tense are never abandoned in Hebrew, nor 
the difference of forms ever superseded or neglected, surely fall 
before such an exhibitk)n as this. 

Nor must this be set aside, because it is poetry* Poetry, in 
Hebrew, no doubt allows of some peculiar forms for a few 
words ; and few indeed they are. But poetry does not violate 
the fundamental laws of syntax. It is the figurative nature of 
its representations, the elevation of thought and style, and the 
rhythmical nature of its structure, which, with these few pecu- 
liar forms of words, distinguish poetry from prose. It leaves 
the laws of Syntax, the great principles of the language, in the 
main untouched. Irregularities in regard to these laws, when- 
ever they occur, are as frequent in the prose of the Old Testa- 
ment as in the poetry. 

But there are cases even more striking, in some resp'^^^'^. 



1838.] Hebrew Tenses. 157 

than any of those produced, 'Piese are such as follow parti* 
cles that actually and de6nitely express the Hme past. Thus 
in Josh. 10: 12, n^^*; t^, Uhen spake Joshua y Ex. 15: J, 
^"^^ ^^> ^tAen sang Moses ;' and so in 1 K. 3: 16. 9:. 11. 
16: 21, and often elsewhere. 

So after t3*]t), before^ before that, the simple Future is often 
used ; Gen. 2: 5. 24: 45, and often elsewhere. But here, the 
nature of the particle might afford some ground for the use of 
the Future. 

But Ewald, I am aware, has endeavored to provide against 
the exigency which would arise from urging such examples as 
these upon him ; and such might be urged to an extent that 
hardly aidmits of any limitation. He tells, in <^ 473, that the 
idea of becoming this or that, of originating , of being in a form'- 
ing state, of repeated action, etc., all belong to the Future ; 
and when an example occurs which would press hard upon 
him, as to a Praeterite sense of the simple Future, he breaks 
the force of the pressure by averring, that it is customary 
m poetry, and sometimes also in prose, to represent actions in 
past time as being then in a course of performance^ and things 
as then originating, developing themselves, or talcing their 
rise. Accordingly, in order to illustrate this, he appeals to Job* 
38: 21, < Knowest thou this because 1^^ TM thou wast then 
bom V An unlucky example, surely, (or such a purpose ! 
Can it be supposed, now, that the speaker meant to say : 
' Knewest thou this, because thou wast %n the process of being 
bom ?' Or, ^ because thou wast actually bom ?' 

He refers us again to Job 3: 3, ' Perish the day ifi l\\^ in 
whidi I was bomJ Here too we may well ask : Does Job 
mean to represent himself as in the process of birth on thatday, 
or does he mean to designate the action as completed ? Once 
more he refers us to Job 3: 1 1, « Why did Inot die (n^Joij . .filb) 
from the womb ? [Why did I not] expire ('1^^) as I oame 
forth ijx)m the beUy ?' Now whatever might be said in defence 
of that signification of the simple Future (here are two of them), 
assigned to it by Ewald, viz., that of or^nating, developing 
itself, etc., it must apply, if it is at all applicable, to other verbs 
as well as to those which ^gnify to be bom, or to come into be* 
ing. It is not the meaning of a verb, considered in this point 
of lif ht, which has aoy thing to do with Mode and Tense. Ac- 
cocdmgly. Job not only employs the simple Future to signifjf 
his birth in time past, but also to designate death in time past. 



158 Hebrew Tenses. [Jak. 

(n«i)9fic , ^1^^)* But is it a C9ntin'aedf a repeated act of death 
that lie wbhes for himself, or designates ? No more, I answer, 
can this be supposed, than that the birth before mentioned means 
a repeated birth. 

But Ewald presents us with another branch of this meaning 
of the simple Future, which, as he maintains, springs out of the 
idea of becoming something, developing, originating, etc. The 
Present tense indicates something, ne says, which evidently be- 
longs to this category. It is not what is stationary, done, tran- 
sacted, but something which is in doing, which is taking rise, 
etc. Hence the simple Future may designate thi? also. The 
appeal is made to Num. 23: 7, * From Syria Balak, king of 
Moab, ^3|-|^2 1 conducts me.' So would he render this last word ; 
but it seems to me quite a plain case, that the Praeterite sense 
is the one here to be giyen — * Balak hath conducted me — and 
that is the reason why I am now here present.' 

But however unsatisfactory the prooi adduced by Ewald may 
be in this case, yet nothmg is more certain than that the Future 
does often designate the Present; e. g. 9*^» ft^b, I know n^t, 
1 K. 3: 7. So Is. 1: 13, i?8|« tKb , / cannot; Prov. 15 : 20, 
* A wise son nato^ maketh glad his father, etc.' But is this 
merely in conseauence of the peculiar sense given to the so- 
called second Mode ? Not at all ; the Praeter often has the 
sense of the Present too ; e. g. "*rpjn[^ J know, Ibj^ he is small, 
Ps. 1: 1, 'Blessed fa the man who walketh not (^bn) in the 
counsel of the ungodly, who standeth not (in:j) in the way of 
sinners, who sitieth not (^^;) in the seat of scomers.' And 
so in cases without number. 

Even so is it, moreover, with the relative Future, as Ewald 
enjoins it upon us to name it. E. g. ' And the land MlbTsPii is 
JuU of silver,' etc., Is. 2: 7, 8. So bSKn*;! and mourns] in 2 
Sam. 19: 2 ; et saepe alibi. 

With such facts as these before us, how shall we concede to 
the Future the designation of the Present, on the peculiar 
ground that it signifies what is originating or developing itself, 
etc. ? Has not the Present the same sense, when it is designa- 
ted by the Praeter, the Future relative, and the Participle, 
which last confessedly designates it in instances beyond enu- 
meration ? It is sometimes said, that ' it fa a poor rule which 
will not work both ways ;' and whatever limitations thfa maxim 
may have, in the case before us, it fa impossible to shew that the 
designation of the Present tense belongs to the Future on the 



1838.] Bdfrew Tensti. 159 

ground of sometbing appropriate to the nature of the Present 
tense, and yet that the Praeter and relative Future and Partici- 
ple all designate the Present — without any good reason for it, 
or for a different reason from that which belongs to the designa- 
tion by the simple Future. 

I have said enough to shew, that there is no stable ground 
to support the assertion, that the simple future form may not be 
employed to designate the past and the present. It is thus 
employed in a multitude of cases. And if the reason given by 
Ewald, why it is so employed, is a good one, then I might as- 
sume a position like Ewald's in respect to the appropriate mean- 
ing of the Praeter, and the relative future, and argue from this 
that they designate the Present because it contains this appro- 
priate sense. What proves too much, does not prove — quite 
enough. 

But let us now examine, for a moment, another of the lead- 
mg positions of Prof. Ewald, in regard to the use of the tenses ; 
viz., that when Vav conversive precedes the Future, it always 
(stets) develops the idea of becomingy of taking rise, or ori^ 
natir^y and so the composite form in question describes the nse 
or origination of an action out of some foregoing one, ^ 476. 

But this general position is somewhat modified, by his after- 
wards telling us, that such a relative Future may designate 
either a sequency in respect to time, or one in respect to ideas* 

One would have naturally understood him to mean, by his 
first general affirmation, that caiao^on, or rather the effect 
which follows causation, is exclusively designated by the rela- 
tive Future. But still we will not insist on this ; for he has a 
right to his own definitions and limitations. A sequency in point 
of time, then, is one thing designated ; the other is, sequency 
in respect to ideas in the mind, i. e. conclusions drawn from 
premises, or apodosis completing a protasis, as he himself ex-^ 
plains it, ^ 476. And this relation to something antecedent 
and what immediately precedes, is indispensable, as he evident- 
ly appears testate the matter, to the use of the relative Future^ 
i. e. the Future with Vav conversive. 

But is this so ? Let us examine several cases which readily 
present themselves. In Gen. 2: 8, the writer tells us, that 
** Jehovah planted a garden in Eden, toward the East, and 
there he placed the man whom he had made ; and there Je- 
hovah God made to grow fifom the ground every tree pleasing to 
the sight and good for food, etc." The writer goes on, in verses 



160 Hebrew Tenser [1838. 

10 — 14, to describe the riyer which flowed from the garden, 
and the four rivers that were disparted from it. After this, 
in verse 15, he again resumes the thread of his narration; 
*And Jehovah took np^i (relative Future) the man, ^ntTS*2,and 
brought him into the garden, etc' Here then is not a sequency 
in the narration. This same fact had been already stated in 
verse 8 ; and after this statement, other things, viz., the growth 
and flourishing of the plants, etc., are related as matters that 
took place subsequent to the introduction of man into the gar- 
den. But in verse 15 the placing of man in the garden is again 
stated, and of course this is something which preceded^ not 
which followed, the growth of the plants, etc. Should it be 
said that the matter in verses 10 — 14 gives occasion to the 
relative Futures in verse 15, the answer is, that this matter is 
of such a nature, and so independent of the tenor of the narra- 
tive, that there is no proper sequency here, nor is there a rela- 
tive Future, nor a ^rj^i {^ 479 above) to keep up the sequent 
cy in question. 

But if any one is still disposed to doubt whether a Pluper- 
fect sense can be given to the relative Future here, let him pass 
on to Gen. 12:1,' Now Jehovah had said (*^^A«l) to Abra- 
ham : Get thee out of thy country, etc. ;' yet the two verses of 
the narrative which immediately precede this, viz. Gen. 11 : 31, 
32 tell us, that Sarah had, some time before this, left Ur of the 
Chaldees and gone out with Abraham to Haran, where the 
former died. So here is not sequency in "^>)N^1 » but regression ; 
for it reverts to something which happened beforo Sarah and 
Abraham left Ur, (comp. Acts 7 : 2, 3), and is therefore, as to 
meaningy a proper Fluperfect. 

Again, in Gen. 24 : 29 it is stated that ' Laban ran out to 
meet the man (Abraham's servant) at the well.' Yet in the 
{(ucceding verse (v. 30) it is said ; * it came topasSy ^^J^$ that 
when Laban saw the rings upon the fingers of his sister Kebec- 
ca, etc., Kl^i , that he went out to the man, etc' Beyond all 
question the narrative in the thirtieth verse exhibits facts which 
precede what is stated in the latter part of the 29th verse. 

In Gen. 27 : 23 it is stated that * Isaac blessed (inSWj) 
Jacob.' Then in vs. 24 seq. is related all the previous convert 
versation on this occasion, and this narration begins with a 
*l^**l»y5^^ Isaac had said, etc. 

In Gen. 24 : 61, It is said : ^ And Rebecca arose, and ber 
maidens, and they rode upon the camels, and went after the 



1838.] Hebrew Tema. 161 

man [the servant of Abraham], njg^l and the man took Rebec- 
ca and departed.' Now here the action of taking her and com- 
mencing his departure, surely preceded the riding upon the 
camels and going after the servant in question. 

So in Is. 48 : 18, 19, ' O that thou hadst listened to my 
commandments ! '^n'^,;> then had been thy peace * like a river, 
etc., and thy seed "^n^i had been as the sand of the sea, etc' 
But here Ewald would probably say, that the "^n^i designates 
an event subsequent to the listening which is mentioned. 

Enough pf examples of a Pluperfect sense of the Future 
with Vav. It were easy to multiply them, did my limits per- 
miL If any one doubts, let him take up his Hebrew Bible and 
read on, with attention, through a few pages, and watch the de- 
velopment of this so-called relative Future, independently of 
any system or theory in respect to it. If he does not then give 
up the theory of Prof. Ewald, it will not be for want of evidence 
that it will not abide the test of experiment. 

It would be easy to call in question, and (as it seems to me) 
to render altogether doubtful, several other positions of Ewald, 
in respect to the Future tense. But as these are only some of 
the fine-spun threads of his web, and too tenuous to give it much 
support or consistency, I pass them by, lest I should exhaust 
the patience of the reader. 

Will he indulge me, however, while I briefly examine some 
of the positions of this learned Professor, in respect to the Prae^ 
ter tense, or fas he names it^ Jirst Mode 1 

He begins oy teUing us, tnat ' it designates only what b com- 
pletey definite^ and certain^ ^471. Yet in ^ 472 he con- 
cedes, that the Praeter sometimes stands as a designation of the 
Future ; but it is only when that Future is viewed by the mind 
as already in effect completed^ or, at least, it must be absolutely 
and unconditionally certain that it will be completed. 

It would seem from this account of the future sense of the 
Praeter, that when it is so employed there arises an intensity 
of signification in consequence of it. The certainty is grounded, 
in the view of the writer, (at least this seems to me to be Ewald's 
view of the case), on the foundation of a divine assurance ; so 
that the use of a Praeter in this way could hardly be proper, 
except in words represented as spoken by the divine Being him- 
self, or by others speaking merely by his authority. 

Now as to the fact, that in predictions, assurances, or prom- 
ises, etc., the Praeter is often employed in a Future sense, this 

Vol. XL No. 29. 21 



16S Hebrew Tenses. [Jam. 

is 80 evident that all acknowledge it ; and it is conceded bf 
Ewald himself in ^ 472 ; so that it is unnecessary for me to 
make any effi)rt to prove it. But still I have a question to ask 
here, which relates to this subject ; viz. How comes it, that in 
the same prediction, such Praeterites as those now before us 
and also proper Futures are commingled ? Is the one more 
intense and certain than the other ? And if not, how can this 
be a ground for employing the Praeter in the place of the Fu- 
ture, where a proper future sense is to be conveyed ? 

Take for example Is. 9: 1, *The people who were walking 
in darkness shall see (^Mn) a great light ; and as to those who 
dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, light shall shine 

i'mi) upon them, etc.' Then follow other verbs of the like 
brm and with % future sense ; then some with a present sense 
(by transfer of the scene of action) ; then simple future forms, 
and then others still with Vav conversive. AH this in one and 
the same picture of future events, all of which are equally de- 
6nite and certain. 

So again in Is. 5 : 13, ' Therefore my people nbft , shall 
go into captivity .... therefore Hades shaU enlarge herself 
(na^nn), etc.* Then follow n*)?,g . . • iTi; m^fiUure sense ; 
and then immediately succeed n4*l . . . ^^*.l • • • ^J^?^*? » etc. 
all Futures relative, yet all in the same prediction, and in the 
same circumstances as to certainty] etc., as the Praeterite forms 
which had been before employed. See also Is. 5 : 25, 26, 
where the same phenomenon again occurs ; and so in Is. 11: 
1 — 10, and often elsewhere. 

Ewald asserts, that all the cases where the Praeter is thus 
employed, are of that class which have been described above, 
i. e. that they are all cases of absolute certainty, and are looked 
upon as already accomplished for that reason. Yet when the 
proper Future, the relative Future, and the participle are em- 
ployed in the very same prediction, and all respect parts of 
one and the same great occurrence, parts that are all equallv 
certain — all equally definite — how is it in the nature of possi- 
bles to make a distinction such as Ewald here makes, in regard 
to the Praeterites employed to designate the Future ? I say 
again, that which proves too much — does not prove enough. 

Such is Ewald's statement respecting the simple Praeter, 
and such the grounds for calling it in question. But there is 
another view which he has given us of the Praeter with Vav pre- 
fixed, (^ 480 seq.), which claims and should receive some of 
our attention. 



1838.] Hebrew Teme$. 163 

To the Praeter of this class he assigns the task of designa- 
ting what is certain, or, if it be yet to happen, what is as 
good as completed, in the view of the speaker. Here then, as 
the use of such a Praeter is one of the most frequent of all the 
Hebrew forms in respect to the designation of actions that are 
future, it is evident we must have a large multitude of intensive 
declarations in the Scriptures. Every where certainty becomes 
the reigning order of the day. There is scarcely room left fqr 
opinion, or softened forms of speech, or conditionalities of things, 
but almost all b either certain, or looked upon as absolutely so. 

My first remark on this view of the subject is, that no lan- 
guage abounds, or can abound, with such an unlimited mass of 
tntensitives. Where all is intensive, nothing is so ; and where 
such a vast proportion b intensive, as this form of the Praeter 
would constitute in Hebrew sentences, emphasis must be nearly 
out of question. So much of it — makes none. 

But I have difficulties, also, with other views of Prof. Ewald, 
in relation to this form of the Praeter. He says (^ 480), that 
* when this relative Praeter is employed to designate a jtUure 
sense, it is a more definite and decisive form than the relative 
Future.' I do not understand him here. Does he mean that 
it designates the Future more decisively or definitely than the 
Future with Vav conversive designates it ? He cannot mean 
this, I think, because he does not assign Sijuture sense to this 
relative Future,, if I rightly apprehend him. He must mean, 
then, that the relative Praeter is more definite in the expression 
of the meaning which it designates, than is the relative Future. 
If this be the meaning, I am quite at a loss to know what can 
be said which will confirm such an assertion. 

The yoc^, that the Praeter with Vav stands, in cases without 
number, to designate actions future, is so beyond all question, 
that neither Ewald nor any other Hebrew scholar will attempt 
to deny it. But the marked distinction of the future, when 
designated by this form of the verb, is what is peculiar to Ewald 
and his followers, and is what now claims our examination. 

Let. us begin with the. very example which he adduces in 
order to confinn his statement, viz. tihb;^ if^l^ he wUlgo, and 
then he will fight. I ask now, whether it is more certain and 
definite that he mHJightj than that he will go 1 Or is it cer- 
tain at all events that he will fight, and yet uncertain whether 
he will go ? Open the Hebrew Bible any where, and examine 
the tenor of the discourse. E. g. Is. 1: 19, * \f y^ fhall 6c 



164 Hebrew Tenses, [Jak. 

vnlling (^at(n tH), and mil hearken {'OS^^'OC^), ye shall eat 
the sood of the land. But if ye shall refiise (^3fi!t^n tSM), and 
shall be' refractory (crj'^nTa*!), the sword shall devour, etc/ 
But it would be a waste of time to adduce evidence here, which 
every paragraph of the Hebrew Bible proflfers to our view. 

Once more ; Ewald says that this form of the Praeter desig- 
nates in a peculiar and appropriate manner, and indeed that it 
is one of its principal offices to designate, actions which are re* 
peated and continued^ {^ 480. 2.) Let us take, then, the 
very example which he offers as confirming this, viz. ^ A mist 
rt|jicni Ti\^^i went up and then it watered the face of the 
ground, etc.,' Gen. 2: 6. Now here it is no more certain that 
the mist watered the ground, than it is that it went up ; and 
surely the action of watering was no more continued or hcintual 
than the action of going up. The latter was the only ground 
and cause of the former. Yet the going up is expressed by 
the simple Future, used as a Praeterite, and the watering by a 
Praeter with Vav before it, and employed in its usual Praeterite 
sense. 

In the same manner, it would be easy to shew, are number- 
less cases of the Praeter with Vav construed ; and the ques- 
tion, whether they are to have a praeterite sense or a future 
one, is decided, as seems plain to me, not by the fact of being 
prefixed by a Vav, but by the sense of the verb which pre- 
cedes at the commencement of the sentence or the clause in 
which they stand. For illustration, I refer the reader to the 
cases just produced above, from Is. 1: 19, where the Future 
form with a future sense precedes, and therefore the Praeter 
with Vav which follows has a future sense with a praeterite 
form. Long ago, indeed, was this remarked, and established, 
as one might think, by Hebrew grammarians ; but Ewald has 
strong desires to exhibit something ' new under the sun.' Yet 
new things are not always true things ; and most palpably, here 
his distinctions are made without a difierence for their basis. 

There is room for criticism, on nearly every position which 
he advances, that has any thing peculiar in it. Not that I dis- 
pute the fact, in any case, that the different forms of the tenses 
do in more or less instances designate ideas such as he assigns 
to them. This is not his error. It consists in making them 
mark peculiarly or exclusively such ideas, and the consequent 
(at least the implied) seclusion of other forms of the Hebrew 
verb from performing such an office. 



1838.] Hebrew Tentes. 165 

How easy now to reverse the whole process, and throw back 
on him the burden of proof! If I should say, that the simple 
Future denotes appropriately such action as is habitual and 
often repeated, I could advert to numerous examples in the 
Hebrew Bible, as every critic knows, by which I could confirm 
my position. Suppose then I assume the position, that this is 
the distinguishing and characteristic trait of the Future, and 
aver that all other forms of verbs which designate the same 
sense, such as the simple Praeter, and the Praeter with Vav, 
do it accidentally and by a kind of enallage in usage, etc ; why 
is not my ground in all respects as firm and tenable as that of 
Prof. EwaJd ? I cannot see why it would not be so ; nor do- 1 
apprehend that my error could be made more palpable than his. 

Such is the result of a brief examination of this celebrated 
Hebrew critic, in relation to this highly interesting and impor- 
tant topic of Hebrew Grammar. His views are novel, in some 
respects ; not as to facts, but as to the alleged reasons or grounds 
of them. Every thing is reduced to theory ; and theory has 
an all-pervading and overpowering influence. Hence the at- 
traction which his Grammar possesses for a certain class of the 
German critics. The inclination of a large portion of literati 
in Germany is strongly set towards theory in every thing. 
Even when it degenerates into mere imagination and conceit, if 
it be ingenious, it does not seem to stand in the way of many, 
nor to be the less acceptable. And so here, in the case of 
Ewald ; his Grammar is, in the eyes of many, an absolute nan'- 
pctreil of perfection. Gesenius, and all who have preceded or 
followed him, with the exception of Ewald, dre tame, dull, old- 
fitshioned writers, who have advanced no further than agere 
actum. It is the theory of this new adventurer, which has be- 
come in grammar, what the Pritudpia of Newton b^ame in 
philosophy. When one contemplates facts like these, how can 
he help thinking of what Madame de Stael has so characteristi- 
cally said of the Grermans : ^' The Englishmen live on the 
water; the Frenchmen on the land; but the Germans-— in 
the air.'' 

In our own country too, the same changes have been occa- 
sionally rung, and in quarters where the doctrines of past ages 
do not often meet with a ready abandonment. We have been 
told that '^ Gesenius has already become antiquated ;" and when 
this has been doubted, and a venture made to eall it in question, 
with an appeal to ftcts, then we have had an earnest and hearty 



166 HebreUif Tema. [Jan. 

defence of sucb a position. Yet after all, the arguments em- 
ployed in this defence, have been deduced only firom what was 
before conceded, viz., from the favourable opinions of a certam 
class of critics in Germany in respect to Ewald ; and in this way 
a confirmation of the declaration respecting Gesenius has been 
attempted. ' Si non Superos — Ax;heronta movebo.' 

I grant that there are such critics. But are not the like things 
to be found in all— -or nearly all — ^the other branches of litera- 
ture in Germany. Where is Kant now ? Or Fichte, or Jacobi ? 
And where will Schelling and Hegel be, the next generation ? 
It does not come with a very good grace firom those, who keep 
on with such anxious solicitude in the paths of 1520 — 60, and 
hereticate all who take the liberty of retreating merely now and 
then into some small nook which diverges fit>m the old road, 
either for the purpose of rest or refi^shment under some invit- 
ing shade there, to strike off with sucb velocity into the mazes 
of a comet, which leads so far beyond the boundaries of our 
*^ visible and diurnal sphere." — Sed — manum de tabula. 

A few suggestions more, and I have done. 

It has been often said, and with much truth, that it is easier 
to pull down a building than to erect one. It may seem to the 
reader, perhaps, that I have been merely engaged in the work 
of demolition, and that, even if I have succeeded, I have not 
proposed any other theory in the place of Ewald's. This is 
partly true. My positions have only been of such a nature, in 
general, as to shew that my views differ widely firom his ; not 
as to simple &cts, but as to the mode of accounting for them. 
But still, bv all this the way has been prepared, as I would 
&in hope, for the introduction of a few remarks, which belong 
rather to the category of the thetiCf than that of the antithetic* 

I begin then by remarking, that an attentive examination of 
the €u:ttial use^ (not the theory), of the Hebrew tenses has led 
me unavoidably to the conclusion, that while there are definite 
and distinct uses of the Praeter as such and of the Future as 
such — so definite in certain cases that no other form could be 
employed — yet there is a wide and broad ground in which the 
form of the verb, whether Praeter or Future, with Vav or with- 
out, is treated in a manner altogether aaristiCf i. e. unlimited 
as to ti$ne, and the sense in this respect is to be gathered fit>m 
the context and the strain of the discourse. Take the same 
narration, or the same strain of prediction, and you will find 
aimple Praeter and Future, relative Praeter and Future, and 



1838.] Hebrew Temes. 167 

Participle abo, all employed to express the verj same relations 
as to time. This cannot be denied ; and no tenuous distinc- 
tions between the one and the other will abide the test of crit- 
ical scrutiny, llieory may make dbtinctions ; but plain com- 
mon-sense reasoning will not sanction them. 

I would lay it down then as a rule of great extent, for the 
interpreter oi the Hebrew, that he is to look to the context^ and 
to that in connection with the nature of the case, in order to 
determine by what tense he shall render the Hebrew verb, 
when any doubt arises. I venture a remark, too, on this rule 
which some will be ready to assail as too indefinite ; and this is, 
that there is not one case in a hundred, where the reader of 
Hebrew will ever doubt for a moment by what tense he is to 
translate a verb, let the ybrm of it be what it may% 

I have tried the experiment many scores of times, even with 
tyros in Heblrew. I have asked them : Do you find any difil- 
culty in knowing by what tense you must translate a Hebrew 
verb ? The answer has neariy always been : None. And so 
it must be, in the great mass of cases which are presented in the 
Hebrew Scriptures. 

If this is so easy, then, even for a foreigner and a compara- 
tive stranger to the Hebrew, how much easier must it have 
been for a native ? The doctrine of Greek quantity in the 
tragic poets, and even the epic, is difficult enough for a student 
of the present day ; but the great mass of an Athenian audience 
at the theatre, would detect in an instant the smallest errors in 
quantity or in accent. A native Hebrew would in like man- 
ner, when taught by practice, manage as well with his five foims 
of tenses, (if indeed there are so manY)> as a Greek would with 
his wonderful apparatus of tenses and modes. 

The fact that there are but two substantially different forms 
of tense in Hebrew, (if we exclude the Participle from being 
ranked as a tense), does in itself offer evidence to the mind, that 
the Hebrews must have given these two different forms a great 
latitude of meaning. One cannot even imagine that there can 
be any great difierence of conception in the human mind, or 
among different nations, about the modes of action. All nations 
must have verbs that designate, either by form or usage, posi- 
tive and conditional action. They must in some way too be 
expressive of time past, present, or future. If they have not 
theybmu adapted to express all this, then it must be left to the 



i68 Hebrew Tenns. [Jan. 

surroundiiig ^xilext to point out such an bterpretatiaii of the 
verb. And this, in most cases, is a thing so obvious^ that many 
of the Greek tenses seem to be almost superfluous. In fact 
actual usage made them so. In the active and middle Toices, 
for example, we have never but one future which is^ actually 
employed ; comparatively seldom is it in the Passive, that more 
than one Futute is actually in use } and of the Aorists scarcely 
'Cver more than one is employed as belonging to one and the 
same voice* Even the use of the second Aorist in the passive 
voice, renders it decisive that no second Aorist active is or can 
be employed of that same verb ; and the remark is altogether 
common among grammarians that no Greek verb, or at most, 
scarcely any one, in the whole language, ever employs all its 
modes and tenses. 

Yet all tlie various significations that needed to be expressed 
were expressed by the few tenses only, which are in many in- 
stances employed. So true is this, that the verbs mostly in 
common use, such as olda^ yivoftM, igzofim, il^il, y&puenw, etc., 
are almost without exception those which are most defective, 
and have the fewest forms. This is demonstration that the 
want of the power of expression was not felt, when the number 
of forms employed was quite small. 

Thus also was it, doubtless, with the Hebrews* They had 
hoi two distinct forms of tense ; and in thb respect we may say 
their verbs wore inferior in their structure to those of the occi* 
dental languages. But then, before we pass sentence upon 
them as a wholes we .must take into view the Piel and Pual, 
the Hiphil, Hophal, and Hithpael forms of the verb, which gave 
variety and intensity of signification to it such as our language 
cannot at all reach with their verbal forms, and scarcely attain 
with our ample apparatus of adverbs. 

In respect to these various methods and ways of conveying 
^significations, different languages throughout the world vary 
ifom each other. Yet after all, the essential and substanUal 
part of verbal significations must be alike in all languages, be 
;their forms more or less in respect to number. 

As a further proof how little of absolute neces»ty there is of 
.so many variations as the Greek (for example) employs, con- 
sider for a moment the variety of meanings attached, as all now 
concede, to the Infiniti/oe absohUe of the Hebrew. Here oHe 
form only may designate every mood, tense, number, gender, 



188B.] Hebrew Temes. 169 

and peisoD. Did the Hebrews feel any embarrassment or un- 
certainty in thus employing it ? None whatever, I apprehend ; 
for we feel none now in thus interpreting it. 

But I shall be inquired of here, no doubt, by such as may 
hesitate respecting some of these positions, how it comes about, 
that the Praeter and Future could sometimes be distinctively, 
appropriately, and even antithetically used, and yet at other 
times mei^d as it were in one common and indefinite usage, 
and appropriated to designate the sense of all the tenses ? How, 
it will be said, can any reader know when one of these usages is 
to be adopted, and when another ? 

The answer is easy. How can any one know when Q^n , 
for example, has (in Kal) an active sense, and when a passive 
one ? In other words, how can he know when to translate it 
to exaltf and when to be exalted 7 The form is identical, the 
conjugation the same, in both cases. Yet the reader has no 
difficulty in either case. The context and the exigency of the 
passage always give him the obvious clue to the meaning in 
any particular instance. 

So was and is it with the Hebrew tenses. The context, the 
relation of the clause, the exigency of the passage, point us at 
once to the sense ; just as when the Infinitive absolute is em- 
ployed, the question how it is to be understood is solved at 
once by the circumstances in which it is employed. 

Nor is this usage singular or strange, which gives to the Prae- 
ter and Future at times a sense wholly diverse, and in some re- 
spects even opposite, while at other times and in other circum- 
stances their meanings are identical, or at any rate so nearly so 
that no specific difference can be fairly pointed out. We may 
take, as an exhibition of the like principles, some of the Greek 
particles ; e. g. xa/ and ^/. Both are often employed as par- 
ticles of transition from one sentence and subject to another, in 
the thread of discourse, and yet of connection between the same. 
Both indicate continuity of thought and representation in some 
respects, while they pomt out diversity or separation in some 
others. Yet di b never employed as a copula in connecting 
several Nominatives, for example, or subjects of a verb togeth- 
er ; here the office of xa/ or some equivalent (as xi) is exclu- 
sive ; nor is ii employed in connecting the predicates of a sen- 
tence together, or the objects which follow a transitive verb. 
While diese two particles, then, occasionally, and even often- 

VoL. XI. No. 29. StSt 



170 Hebrew Temu. [Jait. 



times, occupy common groudd, they diflkr widely in many 
spects. 

So it is also with many other words ; e. g. ii and /ap, etc* 
So is it, too, with many nouns, verbs, and adjectives. In some 
one of their meanings they become synonymous with some other 
words ; in other meanings they are widely discrepant. If you 
ask, how then can they be distinguished ? 1 answer, by the 
tenor of the discourse and the nature of the case where they 
are employed. 

I can therefore imagine no serious difficulty in the war of the 
supposition that has l^en made, viz., that the Hebrew forms of 
tenses could be employed, as occasion required, in every sense 
as it regards the expression of time. 

The very fact that the Hebrew had so few formsof tense, oUi* 
ged him thus to do. Just as the imperfect verbs of the Greek 
obliged him to use the Imperfect, or the Perfect, or the Aorist, 
as the case might be, for all the Praeterites ; and the second 
Future Middle for all the active Futures. Was his discourse 
rendered obscure by this ? I trust not. 

Our subject should not be dismissed, however, without some 
remarks on that " Proteus" Vav, which so commonly desig- 
nates a Praeterite sense by a Future form, and gives to the 
Praeter a Future sense. 

The common theory in respect to the -i prefixed to the Fu- 
ture, is detailed in all the recent Grammars. The substance of 
it is, that this is a relic of ni 17 to he, and that the Future is in 
reality constituted, when o is prefixed, by two forms of verbs ; 

so that ^01^72 = -^R*! ^H. i- ^' ^ ^^ [that] he wtndd kill. 

In respect to the Vav before the Praeter, this origin is not 
pretended by Gesenius and others who follow him. Here 1 is 
the proper conjunction ; while still a change is wrought in the 
verb, both as to the place of its tone, and as to the time which 
it designates* 

Ewald, as stated above on p. 147, derives the *i of the Fu- 
ture relative from .ITri . Still neither this method', nor that of 
Gesenius, accounts for all the phenomena. When Gesenius 
refers us to the kindred languages ^Lehrgeb. p. ^293), viz. the 
Syriac and Arabic, for examples ot Futures with a Praeterite 
sense formed by the help of the verb to be, he does not account 
for all the difficulty of the matter in Hebrew. How comes it, I 
ask, that Vav before both the Praeter and Future always bears 
the signification of and, or at any rate of the Hebrew \ con- 



1838.] Hebrew Tentei. 171 

junctioo ? There is do difierence, moreover, id this respect be- 
tween the Praeterite and the Future, in regard to the Vav he- 
ibre them. But in the kitidred languages, the verb to be does 
not, when employed in a composite tense, convey a copulative 
meaning. The analogy then feils here, in an essential point. 

I am inclined therefore to the opinion, that neither Gesenius 
nor Ewald has hit upon the true theory. I must, on the whole, 
regard i as a copulative, both before the Praeter and the Fu- 
ture. And this I must believe, with my present views, notwith- 
standbg the di^rence in punctuation or vowels. Before the 
Praeter, the first letter of which has a broad vowel belonging to 
it, there is no occasion usually to alter the Sheva under 1 copu- 
la. Before the Future the case is different. Many Futures 
begin with a Sheva under the Praeforraatives, e« g. in Piel and 
Pual. In others the vowel is only factitious, and in Kal, etc., 
it is short Hhireq which is not well adapted to follow Vav pre& 
with Sheva. Here then the Vav adapts its punctuation to the na- 
ture of the case, as prescribed by the laws of euphony. Nor is 
this strange. Before Gutturals with composite Sheva, i copula 
takes the corresponding short vowel, as inri . Before' a letter 
which must retain a Sheva vocal, 1 copula goes into ^ . Why 
not then, as euphony would demand, suppose that 1 copula be- 
fore the •; or the '^ of the Future, goes into "i , i. e. Vav with 
Pattahh and Dagnesh, merely to facilitate the pronunciation of 
these two very feeble letters, which so often are thrown to- 
gether ? I do not vouch for the certainty of this ; but when we 
consider that the meaning (and) is retained in all such uses of 
the Vav, both before the Praeter and the Future, I can account 
for this in no satisfactory way, without supposing the Vav to be 
a copula in all these cases. 

If any one should be disposed to urge the difficulty of the 
Daghesh forte which appears after Vav in the Future, I would 
ask him, whether he is a stranger to the frequent employment 
o( Daghesh forte euphonic in the Hebrew language. 

Be this speculation however as it may, whether well or ill 
grounded, the fact of an alteration of tense in the Praeter and 
Future by means of Vav, lies wide and broad, and plain to our 
view, over the whole extent of the Hebrew Scriptures. In this 
simple and easy way did the Hebrew increase the variety of his 
forms of verbs — a variety with which declension would not fur- 
nish him. In this way, viz. by choosing between four different 
forms for a past tense, and four for a future one, he could main- 



172 Hebrew Tensts. [Jaw. 

tain a greater variety in the mode of expresnng the past or the 
future, 4han either we, or even the Geeeks, have ever been able 
to reach. 

Let me not be understood to say, that all these fojrms are 
employed promiscuously or ad libitum. By no means. Deli- 
cacy and propriety of expression did not at all admit of thb ; 
nor can I doubt in the least, tliat there was some definite reason 
in the mind of the Hebrew, whenever he employed one form 
rather than another, arising either out of the agreeableness of 
variety, or out of the circumstances of the case, the mode and 
form of the expression, the antecedence of adverbs, subjects to 
verbs, qualifying clauses, particles, or somethbg of the like na- 
ture, which always rendered it a matter of propriety and ele- 
gance to choose this and refuse that. But how far these mat- 
ters went, and where they reached the metes and bounds which 
limited good usage, has not yet been sufficiently investigated, cer- 
tainly not disclosed. Ewald has given some fine hints in respect 
to many particulars. 1 wish most sincerely that such a writer as 
Gesenius would pursue the subject, and give us something more 
definite, palpable, intelligible, and well-grounded. 

But there may be some of my readers, who will be disposed 
to say, that ' my view of the Hebrew tenses is too much like 
Father Simon's picture of the Hebrew language ;' who in order 
to give the mother-church at Rome the right of making her 
own interpretation of the Scriptures, maintained, that because 
the Hebrew language every where presents words which have 
several different meanings, there never can be any certainty as to 
any one of these. The clmrch therefore must decide which of 
these meanings shall be adopted. So here ; if the Hebrew Fu- 
ture may become a Praeterite and a Present, and so mutatis otu- 
tandis of the Praeter, then he will exclaim, ' we have a nodus 
deo vii%dice dignus^ — and to which of all the powers above or 
below shall we make the appeal ?' 

Such, 1 say, may be the views of some ; for such views have 
been often presented to the public. Yet a Uttle experience in 
Hebrew and some tolerable knowledge of other languages, will 
soon quiet any apprehensions in relation to this difficulty. I 
have already remarked, that in translating the Hebrew the dif- 
ficulty is scarcely felt, even by a tyro ; so easily does the con- 
text determine what must be tiie tense by which we should 
translate the verb. But if there be a difficulty still, it belongs 
also in no small degree to the other sacred language, vi%. the 
Greek, as well as to the Hebrew. 



1838.] Hebrew Temes^ 178 

Need any weU-infonDed Greek scbolarbe tdd, that the inter- 
change or enaliage of tenses is a phenomenon far enough from 
being uncommon in the Greek ? For example ; the Present is 
used for the Praeter and for the Future. It sometimes supplies 
the place even of the Imperfect, with its peculiar signification. 
The Imperfect is sometimes employed for the Aorists, and for 
the Presept which denotes duration ; the Perfect is employed 
as an Aorist, and often for the Present ; — the Aorist is not un- 
frequently used for the Pluperfect, for the Future, and even for 
the Present ; the Future is used for the Present, and often to 
designate, not what wiU be done, but what ought to be done. 
It would prol<»ig the present discussion beyond aliproper bounds, 
for me here to exhibit a detailed proof of all this. 1 must refer 
my readers, therefore, to my N. Testament Grammar, ^ 125 ; 
to Matthiae's Greek Grammar, Syntax, ^ 500 seq. ; and to 
Winer's New Testament Grammar in relation to the use of the 
tenses. If he consults all these sources where examples are 
presented, no doubt can any longer exist, that such usages are 
spread far and wide over the domain of the Greek language ; I 
will not say, so far as in the Hebrew, but I will venture to say 
— much further than any inattentive observer would even sus- 
pect. 

Yet no one complains of the obscurity and ambigmty of the 
Greek on this account ; and for a good reason, because little or 
no obscurity arises from this source. The context forces the 
true sense upon the mind of the intelligent reader. 

So was it, as I fully believe, with the Hebrew. He could 
manage as well, with his two original fonns of tense, and the 
two adjectitious ones made by prefixing i (the leading design of 
which was for the most part to make the appeal to the preced- 
ing context^, and also the Participle and the Infinitive Mode, 
to express nb views intelligibly and plainly, as we can with all 
our apparatus of may and can and shall and mil and ought and 
flittt^ and should and could and would. That his language was 
more brief and energetic than ours, follows as a matter of course. 

We abide then by the old theory of the Hebrew tenses, at 
least until we obtain a better one. If Ewald's theory is true, 
it will not help us any in translating or even in understanding 
the Hebrew. It will embarrass us, on the contrary, in multitudes 
of places, because we shall be unable to reconcile them with it. 
Yet, with all my conviction that Prof. Ewald has failed to sat- 
isfy the just demands of philology, in the exhibition of hb views, 



174 Pvblic LOrariei. [Jan. 

I pay bim the tribute of acknowledgment in respect to ingenuH 
ty and independence of mind. But 1 cannot go voluntarily into 
the dark path whither he invites me, until he lights up at least 
some brighter lanterns, or else brings the sun-beams to shine 
upon it. 



ARTICLE VIII. 
Public Libraries. 

B7 Robert B. Pattoa, Profftiaor of Oraok Litaratura ia the University of New Yorli City. 

It cannot be doubted that the limited usefulness of our uni- 
versities and colleges, and the circumscribed range of the stu- 
dies and literary productions of their professors, are owing, in 
a great measure, to a deficiency of that invigorating intellectual 
aliment, which a large Library is intended to supply. The 
private studies of the professors cannot have that ample range 
which is necessary to give to their departments the interest and 
variety of which they are susceptible. Our public libraries, 
generally speaking, are not adapted to the present improved 
condition of the departments over which the professors preside ; 
but present a condition of things far below the interesting point 
to which they have been raised by the elaborate researches of 
European scholars, the results of which are deposited on the 
shelves of transatlantic libraries. No wonder, then, that our 
professors shrink from an attempt so manifestly beyond their 
means to accomplish, and confine their literary label's to the 
most elementary productions. To the want of adequate libra- 
ries of reference, and not to an indifference to the great interests 
of literature and science, we must, in justice, attribute the much 
regretted fact, that our professors, who are not wanting, we be- 
lieve, in talents or industry, or enterprise, are slow to venture 
into the arena of learned and profound authorship. We could 
present the names of more than one of our literary men, who 
have wept in secret over tliis desolation ; — who have travelled 
through the length and breadth of the land, to obtain access to 
some important work of reference, to enable them to put forth 
a work worthy of their station and the present condition of their 



1888.] FiiHc lAbrariti. 17S 

respecdve departments, and have returned to their homes in 
disappointment and despondency, abandoning for the present all 
hope of accomplishing their nohle undertakbg. 

On the other hand, those who superintend the training of the 
youth in our universities and colleges are aware of the fact, that 
the most active and highly gifted minds among the students, 
having easily mastered the common course of instruction, and 
having nothing to invite them into the vast field beyond, sink 
into indolence, and not unfrequently into vice. 

It is frequently asserted that the American people are emi* 
nently '^ a reading canmunUy.^^ The truth of the remark is 
incontrovertible ; and while we deplore the limited range of 
studv and effort to which our literary men are necessarily con- 
fined, and acknowledge our vast inferiority to the countries of 
Europe on the score of public libraries and depositories of the 
learning of by-gone ages, we cannot but exult in the fact, that 
our private dwellings, whether in the crowded city, the retired 
village, or the solitary abode of the adventurer in 'Uhe iar west," 
— fi:x>m the splendid mansion of wealth and luxury, to the 
humble cot of indigence and toil — are furnished with popular 
literary works, and those, too, for the most part, of a decidedly 
moral and religious character. 

This circumstance, for which we are mainly indebted to the 
benign operation of our common school system, has already ex- 
erted a propitious influence in familiarizing our whole popula- 
tion with the advantages of literary culture, and in creating a 
thirst for more extended knowledge and higher intellectual cul- 
tivation. And what has been the result ? Our whole coun- 
try, with but few exceptions, presents, as it regards our literary 
culture, the aspect of an almost unbroken level. ^' So higk 
shalt thou ascendy and no higher ^^ must be said to every as- 
piring student, longing to reach the more elevated regions of 
comprehensive and successful research. 

Thus, if we mistake not, the very fact to which, as citizens 
of this favored land, we point with honest exultation, as the 
fruit of our free institutions, now calls upon us with a vok^ that 
cannot be mistaken, to complete the noble structure of which 
we have laid the broad foundation, by establishing a vast store- 
house of learning, an ample library of reference, by means of 
which the level of general information may, to a certain extent, 
be broken up ; — not by depressing any portion below its ]Nres- 
ent elevation, but by afibrding an opportunity for such portkxis 



176 PMic Librariu. [Jah. 

as may demand it, to raise themselves above the sunoundiDg- 
crowd. And this, we contend, is the very essence of our liber- 
al institutions — to furnish opportunities and facilities for a gen- 
erous competition, and a free development of talent, in every 
department of enterprise, whether physical or mental. 

Again, the stupendous literary collections of Ekirope owe 
their origin, or, at least, their present imposing chluracter, to 
munificent royal endowments and princely patronage, or posi- 
tive legislative enactments, adapted to the genius and character 
of European governments, but which, we fear, will be looked 
for in vain, under a government like that of which we boast. 
One fact alone will show how such enactments and patronage 
may gradually swell the size of a public library, and secure to 
it the possession of the literature of the day in every depart- 
ment. The fact alluded to is this, that the universities of 
Oxford and Cambridge in England, and that of Edinburgh in 
Scotland, are entitled, by the existing copy-right law of the 
realm, to receive a copy of every printed work of which a 
copy-right £3 secured. But how different in the aspect of our 
political institutions ! The very feature of our political char- 
acter in which, as Americans, we have occasion to exult, is at 
variance with public endowments, foundations, or enactments, 
except so far as the common weal is literally concerned, and 
each individual member of the community, as well as the whole 
mass of our population, is personally and vitally interested. This 
broad line of demarkation, whose existence we should certainly 
deplore, if we could avail ourselves of no other resources, but 
which, under existing circumstances, we regard as essentkd to 
our political welfare, constitutes one of our strongest arguments 
in favor of the private munificence to which we appeal for the 
accomplishment of this noble object. It furnishes even now 
an imposing spectacle to the European statesman, to behold the 
numberless enterprises in which our citizens cheerfully embark 
their time and wealth and labor, calculated to promote the 
moral and religious welfiire of our community, without a help- 
ing hand or a cheering smile firom '^the powers that be." 
Will, then, our citizens shrink from an enterprise which pro- 
poses, as its aim, an elevated standard of literary character and 
mtellectual worth throughout our country, — impressed as they 
must be with the conviction that, if it be not accomplished by 
private munificence, it will never be accomplished at all. We 
may still be left to indulge our despondency, and weep over 



1838.] Public Libraries. 177 

the literarj desolation of this (air field, where learning and 
religion, literature and the arts, might so easily find a com- 
mon sanctuary. 

Again ; it b obvious to the sagacious observer, that this 
country is to become the seat of war between Christianity and 
her foes, of every form and every degree of pretension. Already, 
in fact, it is so. And Christians must be prepared to maintain 
the externa) defence of our holy religion, by the same weapons 
by which she ever has been, and will be assailed by her ene- 
mies, — namely, those which are furnished by profound and 
extensive research. 

We wish, however, to direct the attention of our fellow- 
citizens to arguments of a more specific character, and less 
generally appreciated, derived from the peculiar and unrivalled 
condition and prospects of our large commercial cities. 

These cities, if we mistake not, are soon to be numbered 
among the greatest commercial emporia in the world. And 
what an assemblage of ideas crowd upon the mind in conjunc- 
tion with this interesting supposition ! Who does not know 
that a great commercial city cannot, in the nature of things, be 
exclusively and merely a cammercicd city? A demapd for skill 
in the various collateral arts, a thirst for general information, a 
desire to gratify the innate sense of beauty in tl)e decorations 
of our public and private edifices, public spirit, and an honest 
pride ot character, — these are but a few of the concomitant 
circumstances that necessarily call forth indefinitely the energies 
of such a city, in every department of labor and enterprise, and 
direct them far beyond the confines of mere trade and com- 
merce. 

To the population, then, of our cities, their resources, their 
practical and ornamental arts, their intellectual and corporeal 
industry, their literary and scientific culture, who will dare to 
assign a limit ? What mind can comprehend, at one view, the 
restless activity, the increasing ferment, the continual flow of 
wealth, into these grand reservoirs and the countless streams 
that shall again flow forth, in some form or other, as a blessing 
or a curse, to every portion of our country and of the globe ? 

To what, now, must we look, in conjunction with religion, to 
preserve us fipom the dominion of error and infidelity, to create 
and sustain a sense of our public dignity, to give efiSciency and 
a laudable direction to our untiring enterprise, to raise us above 
mere animal existence to the character and aspirations of an io- 

VoL. XI. No. 29. 23 



178 Public Libraria* [Jan. 

tellectual coramuDitjr, to keep alive a spirit of bvention aod 
discovery y and to feed the restless miDd with its appropriate 
fbod ? What, in a word, is to resist the inroads of ignorance, 
of vice, of error, of infidelity, of sensuality, of luxury— -of that 
dark and dismal chaos of moral elements, that will bid defiance 
to social order, wholesome subordination, and tlie restraints of 
law ? Must we not give immediate heed to the intellectual 
wants of our growing community ? Must we not make our 
facilities for intellectual culture and literary excellence commen- 
surate with our increasing mental activity and irrepressible ener- 
gies ? In a word, must we not, promptly and energetically, 
meet a want which has already, for years, been felt in our coun- 
try of an adequate library of reference, — ample, easy of access, 
sufficiently extensive to meet the varied demands for informa- 
tion in every department of art, science, or literature ? 

That we do not exaggerate our actual and pressing wants, as 
regards the several departments of art, science, and literature, 
will be manifest from the following statements, which we ven- 
ture to make after careful calculation. 

In order to place the department of Architecture on such a footing, 
in a Library of reference, as to satisfy the generous aspirations of 
our students and professors in that department, and enable them 
to exert a benign influence on our cities emd country, we could 
readily and advantageously dispose of the sum of $30,000 in the 
purchase of works in that department alone . . ((30,000 

Of this any competent bibliographer or well informed archi- 
tect, may satisfy himself, by enumerating the principal and cost- 
ly publications which now enrich the libraries of Europe. Un- 
der present circumstances, the architectural student or professor 
roust accumulate, at a vast individual expense, an architectural 
library, if he hope to meet with ordinary success ; and the few 
whose means enable them to indulge in this luxury, must, from 
the nature of the case, indulge in it alone. The public cannot 
profit by the presence of these works, except in a very remote 
and scanty manner. 

To place the increasingly popular department of Civil £n- 
gineering^wiih its cognate branches, on the same footing, 
we could advantageously expend the sum of . . $20,000 

For the Fine Arts^ especially the remaining arts of Design 

(a very extensive department), .... 50,000 

For ChemUtry^ especially in its connexion with the arts, 10,000 



1888*] Public Libraries. 179 

For Oeohgy^ Mmerdlogy^ Metallurgy and Fbsstl and re- 
cent Canehology^ 15,000 

For Botany, . 15,000 

For Zoology, including Mammalogy^ Ornithology, IcthyoU 
ogy, EnUmology, and other branches (also a very ex- 
pensive depaitment), . . ... . 50,000 

For History, Civil and Ecclesiastical, . . . 40,000 

For Mathematics, pure and applied, .... 40,000 

For Natural Philosophy, including Astronomy, . . 30,000 
For Moral Science, including Ethics, Political Science, 

Natural Law and Political Economy, . . . 50,000 

For Greek and Latin Classics, 40,000 

For Hebrew and other branches of the Semitic stock, . 10,000 
For other Oriental Languages and literature including the 

Indo-Germanic stock, . . . . . . 10,000 

For Modem Languages, including all the necessary helps, 40,000 

For "Rhetoric, Criticism and Belhs Lettres, . 30,000 

Amounting in all to . . , $500,000 
If we add for books strictly professional, viz. 

For Law, 100,000 

For Theology, 100,000 

FoT Medicine, 100,000 

We have in all . . . $800,000 

Which would be immediately required, in order to place all these 
departments on even a respectable footing in a library of reference 
such as our country now demands. 

If therefore we wish to see our country as eminent for its 
literary cultivation as it is for its enterprise in all the departments 
of business — if we wish to see mind exerting its influence on 
mind, by means of those associations for the promotion of sci- 
ence and literature^ which are the chief ornaments of the cities 
of Europe, — we must pi-ovide a great library for the suprply of 
their daily intellectual food, and to nourish and invigorate their 
energies. It is as impossible for such associations to exist, 
much less to prosper and exert their enlightening and meliorat- 
ing influence, without the proximity of such a library, as for a 
community of workmen, employed on some mechanical labor, 
to cheer each other in their toil, and advance their appropriate 
work with a miserably contracted allowance of daily food. la 
each case weakness, lethargy, dulness, starvation, and death 
must ensue. 

Again ; if we would render our country a favorite resort for 



180 Public Libraries. [Jan. 

literary and scientific men of other climes, — a circumstance 
which eminently contributes to humanize, refine, and dignify a 
community, — we must provide the necessary attraction-^^n am- 
ple library — a grand store house of knowledge, to which even 
the European scholar will feel it a privilege to resort. 

Is it not, then, high time to commence this enterprise also, 
and to give it a commanding rank, among the enterprises for 
which our country has been so justly celebrated ? 

Permit us here to state a few facts, serving to show the vast 
inferiority of our country, as regards its provisions for the higher 
intellectual wants and literary culture of the community. 

The public libraries of the United States, embracing those 
belonging to colleges, theological seminaries, city corporatk>ns, 
companies and societies are rated as follows : — ^ 

Harvard University, 

St Mary^s, Bait 

Georgetown, D. C. 

Yale, 

8. Carolina, Col. 

Bowdoin, 

Columbia, N. Y. 

Virginia, U. 

Allegheny, Meadville, 

College of N. Jersey, 

Mount St Mary's, Md. 

Brown U. 

St Mary's, Barrens, Mo. 

Union, 

Hampden Sydney, 

St Joseph's, Bardstown, 

Dartmouth, 

Amherst, 

Columbian, D. C. 

Williams, 

Wesleyan U. Ct. 

But^rs, 

William and Mary, 

Charleston, S. C. 

Georgia U. 

Alabama U. 

* [The statement in relutioo to some of the colleger is rather low. 
The total at Amherst is morci thaix 10,000; at Williams more than 
6^000. Ed.] 



ColL Libra. 


StwdeiUt Libra. 


Tout, 


42,000 


6,000 


48,000 


10,000 




10,000 


10,000 




10,000 


8,500 


6,500 


15,000 


8,000 




8,000 


8,000 


4,000 


12,000 


8,000 




8,000 


8,000 




8,000 


7,000 




7,000 


7,000 


4,000 


ii,ooa 


7,000 




7,000 


6,000 


5,700 


11,700 


6,000 




6,000 


5,500 


8,000 


13,500 


5,000 




5,000 


5,000 




5,000 


4,000 


8,000 


12,000 


4,000 


3,000 


7,000 


4,000 


1,000 


5,000 


3,000 


1,500 


4,500 


8,000 




3,000 


3,500 




3,500 


3,500 




3,500 


3,000 




3,000 


3,000 


1,500 


4,500 


3,000 




3,000 



1838.] 

Greenville, Tenn. 
St. Louis, n. Mo. 
Waterville, Me. 
Middlebury, Vt 
Washmgton, Ct 
Hamilton, ^ 
U. of P^nn. 
Dickinson, P^. 
St John% Annapolis, 
Nashville U. 
Transylvania, Ky. 
Augusta, Ky. 
Kenyon, Oh. 
University of Vt. 
Jefferson, Pa. 
Washington, Pa, 
Washington, Va, 
N. Carolina U. 
East Tennessee, 
Centre Danville, Ky. 
Greorgetown, Ky. 
Ohio TJ. Oh. 
Miami U. Oh. 
Western Reserve, 
Franklin, Oh. 
Illinois Col. 

Total, 232,500 55,400 267,900 

We have enumerated fifty-two universities and colleges. 
The whole number in the United States is said to be about 
eighty. Assuming eighty as the number of the organized col- 
leges in the United States, and allowing for the twenty-eight 
not enumerated, an average of 500 vols, for each, we have for 
these twenty-eight colleges the gross amount of 14,000 vols. 
If we allow also 15,000 vols, for the student's libraries of whose 
size we have no certain information, we shall then obtain the 
gross amount of volumes in all the colleges, including student's 
Ubraries in the United States, 316,900. 

Of the fifty-two enumerated colleges six are under the 

care of the Roman Catholics, with . . 42,500 vols. 

Of the Baptists, four, with 20^ 

Of the Episcopalians, five, with .... 18,700 

Of the Mfetbodists, four, with 14,500 

Of the other denominations chiefly Congregational ists 

and Presbyterians the remaining tUr^-three, with I92fi00 



Pvblic, Ldbraries* 




181 


3,500 




3,500 


4,500 




4,500 


2,000 


,500 


2,500 


2,000 


2,500 


4,500 


2,000 


1,200 


8,200 


2,500 




2,500 


2,000 




2,000 


2,000 




2,000 


2,500 




2,500 


2,000 




2,000 


2,000 




2,000 


2,000 


,500 


2,500 


2,000 




2,000 


1,500 


1,000 


2,500 


1,000 




1,000 


1,500 




1,500 


1,500 




1,500 


1,500 




1,500 


1,000 




1,000 


1,500 




1,500 


1,000 




1,000 


1,500 


,500 


2,000 


1,000 




1,000 


1,500 




1,500 


1,000 




1,000 


1,000 




1,000 



182 Public Libraries. [Jan. 

7%eologieal Seminaries, 

Andover, 13,000 

Gettysburgh, 7,000 

Princeton, 6,000 

Southern and Western Theol. Sem. • . . 6,000 

Western Theol. Sem 4,000 

Auburn, 4,500 

Episcopal Sem. N. Y 4,500 

Union Theol. Sem 3,000 

Literary and Theol. Sem. Hamilton, . . . 2,500 

Theological Seminary, Alexandria, . . . 2,000 

Bangor, 2,000 

Theological Inst. Newton, • . . . . 1,800 

Theol. Sem. Hartwick, 1,500 

Southern Theol. Sem. 1,500 

Lane Seminary, . 8,000 

Total, 67,800 

We have here enumerated the fifteen principal theological 
seminaries. There are said to be about thirty-five in all in the 
United States. Allowing for the twenty institutions not enu- 
merated, (some of which have as yet no libraries, or none dis- 
tinct from those of the seminaries with which they are con- 
nected), an average of 800 vols, each, which we cannot but 
regard as amply sufficient, we have for these twenty seminaries 
16,000 vols, which gives for the thirty-five theological semi- 
naries of the United States, the gross amount of 83,800 vob. 

Other Public Ubrcarits, 

Philadelphia Library, 44,000 

Boston Athenaeum, 29,000 

New York Society Library, 25,000 

Congress Library, 25,000 

Charieston Society, 15,000 

Boston Library, J 0,000 

Worcester Antiquarian Society, .... 12,000 

Baltimore Library, 12,000 

American Philosophical Society, Philad. . . 10,000 

Boston Society, 9,000 

New York Historical Society, .... 10,000 

Philadelphia Athenaeum, 7,000 

New York Mercantile, 11,000 

New York Apprentices' 11,000 

Total, 290,000 



1888.] PubUe Librarie*. 188 

• 

These it Is believed, are the principal public libraries of the 
United States, belonging to city corporations, literary socie- 
ties, or to other associations, amounting to 230,000. About 
thirty additional libraries in various cities of the United States, 
might be named embracing each a small number of volumes. 
If we allow 1000 vols, to each of them (many of which will 
doubtless fall short of this number) we shall have 30,000 vol- 
umes to add to the above, making the amount of volumes, in 
all the public libraries of this description, 260,000. 

Thus ve have for the public libraries of the United States : 

Belonging to Colleges 316,900 

Theolomcal Seminaries, 88,800 

Odier hbraries, . 260,000 

Total, 660,700 

These 660,700 vols, are found in about 200 libraries of 
colleges, college students, theological seminaries, etc., and if 
brought together, in order to form one library, would be reduced 
to about 550,000 vob. by rejecting all copies excepting one of 
works which would occur, some two hundred times ; some, one 
hundred and fifty times ; some, one hundred ; sonie, ninety ; 
some, eighty ; and some, fifty times ; and so on as we descended 
from the common popular works found in every library, down 
to those that are more rare and are met with only in a few. 
Thb reduction is necessary in order to institute a just compari- 
son with single libraries of Europe. 

The principal libraries of Europe that contaiu more than 
100,000 volumes are the following : 

Royal Library of Paris, 400,000 vols. 

Central Library of Munich, .... 400,000 

Vatican, . 360,000 

Imperial Library of St. Petersbiirgh, . . . 300,000 

Imperial Library at Vienna, .... 300,000 

University of Gottingen, 300,000 

Bodleian Library at Oxford, .... 300,000 

Royal Library, Copenhagen, .... 260,000 

Royal Library, Dresden, 950,000 

Ducal Library, Wolfenblittel, . . . . 310,000 

British Museum, 200,000 

Royal Library, Berlin, 200,000 

Royal Library, Madrid, 200,000 

St. Mary's, Venice, « 150,000 

Bologna, 150,000 



184 Public Libraries. [Jan. 

Magliabecebiana Library, F1orehee» . 150,000 

Cambridge, England, 140,000 

Royal Library, Stuttgard, «... 140,000 

Academical Library, Prague, .... 130,000 

Naples, 130,000 

Ambroaian Library, Milan, .... 120,000 

Laurentian Library, Florence, .... 120,000 

Lyons, . . 120,000 

St. Genevieve, Paris, 112,000 

Ducal Library, Weimar, . . . . 110,000 

Ducal Library, Parma, . . . . 110,000 

St. Petersburgh Academy of Science, . . 110,000 

Ghent, 110,000 

Grand Ducal, Darmstadt, ^ . . • 110,000 

Bourdeaux, 105,000 

Total, 5,797,000 

Whole number of volumes in (tarty European libzaries 

each containing more than 100,000 volumes, . 5,797,000 
Number of volumes in all the public libraries of Ger- 
many, including the Austrian empire and Prussia, 6,650,000 
Number of volumes in all the public libraries of Paris, 1,330,000 
Number of volumes in all the public libraries of Lyons, 600,000 
Number of volumes in the public libraries of Marseilles, 150,000 

Public Libraries of the city of New York^ viz. 
New York Society, . . . 25,000 



Mercantile, 
Apprentices, 
Columbia College, 
Historical Society, 
Episcopal Seminary, 



11,000 
11,000 

8,000 
10,000 

4,500 



Total, 69,500 

From the preceding exposition it appears, that the whole 
{lumber of volumes contained in about two hundred public li- 
braries of the United States (amounting to 660,700;, barely 
exceeds, numerically^ the number contained in the libraries of 
the city of Lyons. And, if reduced to one library, would not 
greatly exceed, in number of volumes, some of the first rate 
libraries of Europe. 

Again ; the whole number of volumes contained in all the 
public libraries of the United States^ form but about the tenth 
part of the number contained in the public libraries of Germany, 
viz. 6,650,000 ; or about half the number contained in the pub- 



1838.] Public Libraries. 185 

lie libraries of Paris, viz. 1,330,000. In other words, the num- 
ber of volumes belonging to the public libraries of the States of 
Germany amounts to 5,989,300 beyond the number to be found 
on the shelves of the public Ubraries of the whole United States. 
So also, the libraries of the city of Paris alone, embracing 
1,330,000 volumes, exceed those of the whole United States by 
669,300 volumes. And the city of Lyons alone can boast of 
nearly as many volumes in its public libraries, as would be fur* 
nished by all the public libraries of the twenty -six United States. 

Again ; the public libraries of the city of New York collec- 
tively, amount to 69,500 volumes. If these 69,500 volumes 
were brought together, assorted and arranged, rejecting dupli- 
cates, etc. in order to form one library ; it would numerically 
not much exceed the single library of Harvard University. 

Again ; it appears that ail the public libraries of the city of 
New York, will furnish about one ninth part of the number of 
volumes embraced in the libraries of the city of Lyons ; with 
which, in point of population, and devotion to manufactures and 
commerce, a comparison may be instructively made ; and not one 
half^s many volumes as are contained in the public libraries of 
Marseilles, an enterprising commercial city, with a population 
one half as great as that of New York. 

If it be objected that the libraries of Europe have been accu- 
mulating centuries upon centuries, and thus have swollen to 
their present imposing size, we would remark, that the univer- 
sity of Gbttingen dates its origin a century later than our own 
Harvard, and is now one of the first institutions of the age, with 
a library of 300,000 volumes ; while our venerable Harvard 
has not yet been able to rise above its 42,000. The universi- 
ty of Berlin was founded in 1809, and is now one of the most 
distinguished of the univei-sities of Germany, with a library of 
200,000 volumes. The library of the university of Bonn, char- 
tered in 1818, already numbers 50,000 volumes, exceeding the 
number of volumes contained in the library of Harvard Univer- 
sity, that has just witnessed its second centennial celebration. 

We ask, then, again, Is it not high time to commence an en- 
terprise not merely noble and ennobling in itself, but really essen- 
tial to the future prosperity, happiness and respectability of our 
country ? 

If there is a distinguishing trait of national character in the 
American people, it is untiring energy. There is here an elas- 
ticity of mind which, under the influence of our free institutions^ 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 24 



186 Public Libraries. [Jan. 

has both the opportunity and space to expand ; and under the 
pressure of adversity, the power which exists in no other coun- 
try, and under no other system, to resist and overcome obsta- 
cles. Naturally connected with this is the conception of large 
plans for the future. Every plan must, of necessity, be conceiv- 
ed on a grand scale, or we fall below the standard of American 
character. When we consider the amount of mind in active 
exercise in the United States, at work for good or for evil, is it 
not manifest that the food of mind ought to be of a quality and 
quantity suited to the exigencies of the case ? 

When the dearth of literary food in the country is considered ; 
— ^when the facts are stated which show how far it is behind 
some petty States, or even cities, of Europe, will the citizens of 
the United States be alarmed at a proposition to make their 
country the depository of the best library in the world ? 

We should not feel ourselves to be worthy of the country in 
which we live, could we consent to offer a little or contracted 
scheme, for their approbation. Who can calculate the advan- 
tages to this country of such a library ? Who can estimate the 
effect on religion, literature, the sciences, the arts, on com- 
merce, agriculture, manufactures, not of this country only, but 
of the whole world ? 

Lest, however, a feeling of discouragement should possess 
our minds in view of the supposed amount of time necessary 
for the accumulation of such a library, as is here contemplated, 
judging, as we are prone to do, by the more tardy operations 
of our transatlantic brethren, we are reminded forcibly of a fact, 
which needs only to be mentioned in order to rouse our ener- 
gies, and encourage a well grounded confidence of success. 
*We allude to the circumstance that every enterprise, of what- 
ever character, though pregnant with difficulties, and apparently 
impracticable, has, when undertaken with the genuine Ameri- 
can hardiness, and pertinacity, been brought to its accomplish- 
ment with a rapidity, which, though nothing but the natural 
development of vigorous faculties, under propitious circum- 
stances, excites the amazement of every foreigner, who visits 
our favored shores. Two years since, the devouring element 
swept over acres of the crowded city of New York, and now 
a vestige scarce remains of its awful ravages. The foreigner, 
on his arrival asks to see the ruins of the great conflagration ; 
but they ^^ are not.^^ The animated hum of business alone is 
heard, and, in a few more months, the event itself will appear 
like a vague dream, or a remote tradition. 



1898.] Design of JTieQlogical Seminaries. 187 

It must, therefore, be acknowledged that another distinguish- 
ing trait of American character, is the unrivalled promptness 
and rapidity with which even the largest plans are carried for- 
ward to their accomplishment. The interval between the con- 
ception and the execution, usually filled up with doubts, and fears, 
tiiak and failures, hopes and anxieties, is here almost annihila- 
ted by the absorbing energy with which we press forward to 
the consummation. 

Finally : Is there a spot on the surface of the globe whose 
geographical position, whose facilities for intercourse with every 
clime, whose easy, rapid, and comparatively cheap acquisition 
of every foreign valuable article it seeks to attain, in a word whose 
physical, commercial and political advantages call so loudly 
and impressively upon its citizens, to make it the envied depot 
not merely of every description of merchandise, but also of Ut- 
erature, of learning, of science, of the arts, and of their insep- 
arable and indispensable co-adjutor — an ample library ? 



ARTICLE IX. 
Design of Theological Seminaries.* 

B/ the Ear. L. P. HtekolE, Proftnor of Didaotie Tb«olofy, In th* Wmiun Btmm 

Collage, Hadaon, Ohio. 

The great object before the church is the subjection of the 
world to Jesus Christ. The chief instrument divinely appoint- 
ed for this end is the holy ministry. God has given to it the 
high commission to ^' disciple all nations," and each minister in 
his own station is, as far as possible, to promote this object. 
The obligation thus resting alike upon all, secures in the aggre- 
gate the accomplishment of the ultimate end, in proportion to 
their number and extension. No single station has a right to 
urge its claims in competition with the interests of the whole. 
If, in the enlightened observation of christian wisdom, the ulti- 
mate design can be best promoted by the transfer of one man 
to another station, this, and not the separate interest of any 
place, roust bind the conscience and control the conduct. 

* Thia article ww delivered by the author as an inaugural addreaa.— £d. 



188 Design of Theohgical Seminaries, [Jan. 

" The field is the world," and the injunction to " pray the Lord 
of the harvest that he would send forth laborers into his hanrest" 
has reference to the whole field, and not to any exclusively fa- 
vored portion of it. The design of the christian ministry is the 
conversion of the whole world to Christ. 

The design of Theological Seminaries is to provide the most 
efficient ministry for this purpose. The world is to be kept in 
view, and a ministry best adapted to its entire subjection to God 
is to be provided. I assume this proposition therefore as true 

^THE GREAT DESIGN OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES IS TO 

FURNISH THE MOST EFFICIENT MINISTRY FOR THE WORLD. 

The present purpose is to give an attention to the inquiry — 
how shall this great design be attained ? The answer will be 
given under a few general heads, and the whole subject follow- 
ed through several particular deductions. 

To provide the most efficient ministry for the world, theologi- 
cal seminaries must labor 

I. To extend and perfect theological science. 

No new revelation is to be expected from heaven. Nor are 
we to expect that any new fundamental principles will be dis- 
covered, in the revelation which has already been given. The 
sanctified minds of eighteen centuries have been devoutly di- 
rected to the Bible, and it cannot be that any doctrines or du- 
ties essentia] to salvation, remain yet hidden beyond the reach 
of their researches. Such a supposition would be an impeach- 
ment of the wisdom and sincerity of its divine author. The great 
doctrines which compose the system of substantial Chris- 
tianity can never be greatly modified by any subsequent in- 
vestigation. These compose " the foundation of God," which 
** standeth sure J' 

But theology as a science is far more comprehensive. It in- 
cludes not only the truths necessary to salvation, but many im- 
portant and influential doctrines in addition. Every theological 
system must contain much besides its fundamental principles. 
Collateral doctrines and legitimate deductions, philosophical ex- 
planations and practical results must all belong to the system, 
and all be harmoniously combined and amply demonstrated. 
In its perfect state the system must be inclusive of all truth which 
belongs to theology. What has already been discovered must 
be put in its proper place, and there must also be space enough 
for the harmonious addition of all new truth which shall be 
discovered in time and eternity. The right system must be 



1838.] Design of Hieologiccd Seminaries. 189 

competent to embrace all truth, and put aU truth in its right 
place. 

It is therefore clear that there is great room for improvement 
in theological science. Not only is there more truth to be dis- 
covered and systematized, but the definite shape and outline of 
the system which shall include what has already been found, is 
far from being satisfactorily settled. Two great general sys* 
tems, the Calvinistic and Arminian, hold their place in the 
religious world, and with their various modifications divide the 
sincere and devout disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Both 
include the truths of substantia] Christianity, and therefore in 
the great essentials of salvation the sincere members of each 
have but ^^ one Lord, one faith and one baptism." But be* 
yond these foundation doctrines of a common salvation, they 
each have a system of important truths which are widely dififer* 
ent from each other. They involve different philosophical ex- 
planations, and compel to the different interpretation of the 
same texts of Scripture. Though they are each harmonious 
with their own parts, yet are they so different from each other, 
that both cannot be true ; and yet both, as to general system, 
are so comprehensive that one of them roust be true. In this 
one fact there is enough to convince us that theological science 
is yet far fi'om its utmost attainable perfection. Who shall say 
that it is a hopeless efibrt to find which of these is the true sys- 
tem ? And who believes that this may not be so enlightened 
and fortified by Scripture and reason, that in proportion as pre- 
judice and party die, and an honest love of truth prevails, the 
whole of Christ's " disciples indeed" shall be brought inteUigent- 
ly and cordially to embrace it ? It is promised that such ^^ shall 
know the truth, and the truth shall make them free." There 
might still to different minds, be different modifications and ex- 
planations of particular portions, but it would be substantially 
the same general system. This can be done. DiUgent and 
serious research will find truth enough to establish and con- 
firm the right system, and send the false one to the oblivion 
which now covers the exploded planetary theories of Ptolemy 
or Tycho Brahe. * 

* The words of the pious and learned John Robinson, who was 
the pastor of the English church in Holland which sent the first col- 
ony to the rock of Plymouth, and spread over this land the faith of 
the puritans, are here highly appropriate. As the sails of the May- 
flower which was to bear them across the ocean were spread to the 



190 Design of Theological Seminariei. [Javt. 

All science is subsidiary to theology. And at the present 
day the votaries of science are pushing forward with ardor and 
success in all the departments of human knowledge. The 

K resent is a most auspicious time to advance theological science* 
lany things conspire to elucidate the Bible. Pure truth yet 
lies hidden in the exhaustless mine of revelation, and facilities 
for bringing it forth to light multiply around us. Mental sci* 
ence is improved, and the laws of the human mind are better 
understood. The philosophy of language, and principles of 
interpretation — ^the manners and customs, geogi*aphy and nat- 
ural history of the nations of the Bible, are better known. 
The discovery and examination of ancient monuments, cities 
and sepulchres, with all their inscriptions, sculptures and hiero- 
glyphics — ^the more attentive study of dogmatic history bring- 
ing out and comparing former religious opinions — and espe- 
cially the application of the truth and its results by missionary 
efforts, in the case of great numbers and wide varieties of the 
heathen — are all pouring their converging rays upon the sacred 
record, and throwing a light upon every page, unknown since 
the Holy Spirit inspired holy men of old to \^rite it. 

Theological Seminaries are required to avail themselves of 
all these advantages for better understanding the Bible, and 

winds, be says — ^ Brethren, we now quickly part -— Whether I see 
your faces on earth again the God of heaven only knowa Follow 
nie no further than you have seen me follow the Lord Jesus Christ 
If God reveal any thing to you by any other iostrutnent of his, be as 
ready to receive it as ever you were to receive any truth by my min- 
istry : for I am verily persuaded, I am confident the Lord hath more 
truth yet to break forth out of his holy word. For my part I canaot 
sufficiently bewail the condition of the reformed churches, who are 
come to a period in religion ; and will go at present no fbrtber than 
the instruments of their first reformadon. The Lutherans cannot be 
drawn to go beyond what Luther said : whatever part of bis will oar 
good God has imparted and revealed unto Calvin, they will ratber die 
than embrace it ; and the Calvin ists you see stick fast where they 
were left by that great man of God, who yet saw not all things. This 
is a misery much to be lamented, for though they were burning and 
shining lights in their times, yet they penetrated not into the whole 
counsel of God, but were they now living they would be as willing to 
embrace further light, as that which they at first received. Remem- 
ber it — it is an article of your church covenant — ^ Be ready to reeeiot 
uihalUver truth shall he made knotsn unto you froni the written tsord qf 
43iodJ* Mather's Magnalia, Vol. L pp. 59, 60. 



1838.] Design of Theological Seminaries. 191 

apply the whole diligently to the extension of theological sci- 
ence. It is essential to the training of the most efficient minis- 
try for the world. An improved philosophy is subjecting the 
world of matter to man ; and a clearer and more comprehensive 
knowledge of the system of divme truth is also to bring the 
heart and conscience under the power of the preacher. Any 
fact, however minute, which places one text of Scripture in a 
clearer light, is invaluable to the world. No finite mind can 
predict its ultimate results. It is by this increased knowledge 
of divine truth, that the church oi God in the latter day can 
aflbrd to dispense with all the '^mighty signs and wonders" of 
the primitive age. 

II. To secure a thorough and specific mental discipline. 

An academical course of study is designed for the general de- 
velopment of all the faculties. The process of discipline in all 
colleges should be adapted to call forth the energies of the whole 
mind. Nor is there at present any probability that a more effi- 
cacious course will be round, than the long tried and approved 
system of thorough classical and mathematical training. But 
when the mind is brought under the influence of the theologi- 
cal seminary, though it should be allowed to relax none of its 
energies, yet henceforth its training is no longer to be general 
but spedfic. The object now is not merely a strong mind, but 
an able minister — not generally, the capacity to strike hardy 
but speei6cally, to know what to strike, and how to hit. It is 
the want of this specific discipline, which leaves too many to 
spend their lives in doing little else than '^ beating the air." 

There must therefore be a course of discipline pursued with 
specific reference to the peculiar object. It is a standing law 
of dynamics, that all moving forces must be applied in the di- 
rect line of their natural tendencies. You can accomplish no- 
thing by working against nature. The water-wheel may be 
mechanically perfect, but it will not move against the stream — 
the machine will never reverse the direction of the power which 
propels it. No skill of the mechanic can accomplish any thing, 
m violation of this law of nature. Indeed all skill is found in 
the most exact observance of it. But the laws of mind are as 
constant as the laws of matter, and all successfiil action upon 
mind must accord with them. Divine truth iias its own nature 
— ^that which gives to it its specific identity — and mind has its 
own nature ; and nothing will be gained by applying the one 
to the other contrary to nature. God's Spirit does not subvert 



193 Design of Theological Semnaries. [Jan. 

his own laws in either the mind or the truth, when he renews 
and sanctifies the mind through the truth. Man is no further a 
successful instrument, or an effectual co-worker with God in 
the salvation of sinners, than he exerts his agency in conformity 
with these unchanging laws. No power of intellect or fertility 
of genius can avail any thing in opposition. He must know the 
nature of the material on which he works, and of the instru- 
ment by which he works, and thus sdect with wisdom and ap- 
ply with skill, or he will ^^ labor in vain and spend his strength 
for nought." 

It has been assumed, that the best way of gaining this practi- 
cal wisdom in the ministry is by a process of instruction under 
the direction of some wise and experienced pastor. The 
success of such men as Hooker, Porter and others, has been 
adduced in confirmation. But while it is admitted that there 
must be wisdom and experience in all the departments of theo- 
logical instruction, and that on this account it will be found a 
matter of constant necessity, to supply theological seminaries to 
a great extent from the pastors of the churches, yet there are 
many considerations which go to prove, that the seminary, and 
not the study of the private pastor, is the place to provide the 
most efficient ministry for the world. 

Few such men as those above referred to can be found ; and 
if they were far more common in the churches, the vast accu- 
mulation of ministerial labors upon settled pastors at the present 
day would utterly forbid their assuming this additional burden. 
The number of young men now preparing for the sacred office, 
and the prospective demand of the world for many more, des- 
troy all rational hope of supply from such a source. Besides, 
the seminary is the best place for ministerial training. A broader 
system is pursued and more helps are at hand — the stimulus 
of numbers is felt, and opportunities of discussion and friendly 
mental collision are afforded — and in the surrounding region, 
especially among the new churches of the West, the calls for 
biblical, catechetical, and Sabbath school instruction, and all the 
facilities for social exhortation and prayer, and every practical 
preparation for the ministry are far more abundant than any sin- 
gle pastor's time, or library or parish can afford. It is the de- 
sign to accumulate these facilities for thorough and specific dis- 
cipline in theological seminaries, that they may apply them to 
the great purpose of providing for the world, die most efficient 
ministry which can be made out of fallen men. 



1838.] Design of Theohgkd Seminariei. 19S 

ni. To cultivate a spirit of warm, devotional piety. 

Talent, learning, eloquence, orthodoxy, can never be made 
substitutes for pietj. If the minister is not a holy man, all other 
attainments are but so much power for evil. And if he is really 
a converted man, while his piety is greatly alloyed by sloth and 
idleness on the one hand, or rashness and blind zeal on the oth- 
er, he had better betake himself to any other calling than the 
sacred ministry. The man who ministers from God to dying 
men must be deeply imbued with the spirit of Jesus Christ. 
There must be habitual communion with God, a strong love for 
souls, for the closet, for the Bible. This world of sensuality 
and infidelity and idolatry is not to be brought back in allegi- 
ance to God without a ministry whose piety is deep, decided 
and ardent. Their lives as well as their lips must preach the 
gospel. \ 

There is danger, that in acquiring other qualifications, this 
essential one should be too much neglected. The awakened 
energy of mind and ardor of investigation may restain the affec- 
tions of the heart, and wither the christian graces. Every 
seminary is bound to watch and pray against consequences so 
destructive, and exert a direct influence upon the precious 
youth within its walls to keep them near to God and ripe for 
heaven. Piety will not advance without exercise. The heart 
as well as the intellect must be cultivated. No matter with 
what firmness of sinew and fulness of muscle the dry bones may 
be clothed, if the warmth and vigor of the vital spirits are not 
there, it is a lifeless organization — mere dead matter — fit only 
for the sepulchre. A ministry for the church of God and the 
world of sinners must glow with spiritual life and strength, or it 
b good for nothing for either. 

But besides this general method of answering the question — 
bow shall theological seminaries secure their object ? — there is 
an opportunity for a more particular consideration, by following 
out some deductions from the main principle. 

If it is the object of theological seminaries to furnish the most 
efficient ministry for the world, then — 

1. TTiey must he allowed the free investigation of the Bible. 

Free inquiry is the natural right of the human mind. There 
is no general principle within the range of human thought, 
which the mind may not examine freely and fearlessly. The 
Bible is as open to investigation as the book of nature. There 
is a sacredness and solemnity in all truth wherever found, and 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 25 



194 Design of Theological Seminarie$. [Jan. 

especially in the truths of revelation ; but there is nothing there 
too sacred or too awful for human examination. A reverent 
and humble spirit may fix its gaze on the hoHest mystery which 
the Spirit of God has put upon the sacred pages. Let the man 
" put his shoes from off his feet," and he may stand erect be- 
fore the burning bush while the great " I am'* declares his awful 
message. 

Yea it is not only the right, but the duty of the human mind 
to examine the Bible. God has bid us " search the Scrip- 
tures/' and the obligation applies to all which the Scriptures 
contain. Especially is this the duty of theological seminaries. 
Minds are there trained who are to be "set' for the defence of 
the Gospel," and they cannot defend it, if they do not under- 
stand it. Mere authority in this age is good for nothing. Eccle- 
siastical decisions can carry with them no force, any further 
than they embody truth. No article of any creed can stand 
any further than it will bear the most rigid examination. Noth- 
ing which belongs to religion is to be kept in darkness, or at- 
tempted to be sustained but by the power of truth. The opin- 
ions of the fathers, the writings of the wise and good of former 
days should be diligently consulted and carefully pondered. It 
is but the arrogance of ignorance and folly which affects to de- 
spise them as out of date and behind the age. But they are to 
be regarded as teachers, not tyrants. It is the truth which they 
contain, and not their age merely, which makes them venerable. 
Whatever tliere may be in them which will not bear examina- 
tion, is as worthless and as determinately to be rejected as the 
errors of yesterday. 

The ministry of the present age is called to meet every form 
of specious delusion and sophistry and cavilling skepticism. 
The votaries of sensuality and the worshippers of mammon 
have a thousand deceitful hiding places. The heathen nations 
have their long-used superstitions, and in many cases the most 
subtle and elaborate systems of error ; while the Roman beast 
and the false prophet have been deluding: the nations for ages, 
and bound the human mind with fetters of iron. The men who 
are to m<?et all this hostile array and subdue or annihilate it^ 
must not only be permitted, but trained to examine every thing 
that belongs to it. Not only the substantial doctrines of reli- 
gion and their common arguments of defence, but the whole 
system of theology must be understood, with its modern objec- 
tions and evasions and perversions, and all that philosophy or 



1888.] Duign of Tkeologicdl Seminaries, 195 

reason or the Bible can bring to bearoipon it« This is no time 
to shrink from the collisipo of mind >yith mind-^-* of cAm^ion 
mind with pagan mind — or infidel mind* The contest is 
ak^ady begun ; the conflict is even now desperate ; neither the 
friend nor the enemy of the Bible can draw back from the 
shock of conflicting opinions and purposes. One or the other 
must fall vanquished on the field, and yield the kingdom to the 
conqueror. Let the Bible and reason have full scope — let 
truth unshackled grapple with error — and it is not doubtful 
which shall be victorious. Depraved and rebellious as man is, 
there is that in Divine truth, applied by God's Spirit, which 
reaches his conscience and subdues his stubborn will. 

Theological seminaries are designed to raise up a ministry 
adequate to the exigencies of such a crisis ; they must there* 
fore be permitted to survey the whole field and every thing 
pertaining to it. They should possess such a love to truth, and 
such an honest mind in seeking it, that they can have no rest 
in taking things upon trust, or covering ignorance by sophistry. 
To such a mind ail truth is free, and all but truth is worthless. 
The attempt to chain it by authority, or frighten it by preten- 
sions of sacred awe and mystery, from looking or thinking upon 
any truth of God, is high treason against the Bible under the 
name of loyalty. You may as well say that there are some 
substances too sacred for the chemist to analyze, or some par* 
Uons of the heavens too holy for the astronomer to bring under 
the range of his telescope, as that there are some portions of 
the Bible too solemn and mysterious for the christian minbter 
to examine. There are many things both in nature and reve- 
lation which man will not comprehend in this life, but in this 
&ct there is found no prohibition to push his researches to the 
utmost limits, nor by devout efibrts to move that limit, if. he 
can, much fMrther onward into the unexplored darkness, and re- 
claim the region to the clear possession of human science. God 
has set them both before us, and when we will, we may exam* 
ine them. Those especially, who are set to prepare the Lord's 
ambassadors, mmt examine, humbly, reverently, seriously, 
but fireely and unhesitatingly, everything that is connected with 
the sacred office. They must emphatically — ^' prove all things 
and hold fast that which is good." 

2. They must not foiter a sectarian spirit* 

Different views of important doctrines, ceremonies, or modes 
of government may give rise to separate organizations, with 



196 Degign of Theological ScminarUs. [Jan. 

their diflferent names, and thus perpetuate in the church different 
denominations. No attempt in the present day to merge them 
all in one is likely to prove either successful or salutary. Even 
theological seminaries must be more or less denominational in 
their sympathies and patronage. 

But denominational peculiarities may become too prominent. 
Notwithstanding an agreement in all that is involved in sub- 
stantial Christianity, they may he magni&ed to matters of such 
moment as to bar the way to christian communion and coope- 
ration. It then goes beyond a separate organization, having a 
common purpose though a different name, and becomes a sect — 
a party cut off by its own exclusiveness, from the common 
sympathies and fellowship of the general family of Christ. 
Denominational distinctions are therefore expedients, and will 
be perpetual, so long as there is a disagreement in important 
principles. But sectarianism can never be justified by any dif- 
ferences, while there is a union on the substantial doctrines 
which are essential to salvation. 

The ministry, from the very nature of their relation to the 
church, must exert a controlling influence on this subject. If 
they are divided into parties the whole church will in like man- 
ner be broken up bto fragments. Oh ! how does infidelity 
strengthen itself, and vice and irreligion abound, and all the woes 
and cruelties of heathenism press upon the millions of its vic- 
tims, while the church and the ministry are frivolously contend- 
ing about mere sectarian distinctions. Those '* schools of the 
prophets," where the minds of the future pastors of the church 
are to be moulded, stand under fearful responsibilities to the 
great Head of the church on this particular point. They 
may explain and defend their denominational distinctions, but if 
the spirit of sectarianism be there, it will difiiise the poison 
through all the body. Their young men will go forth, with no 
zeal but for their distinctive peculiarities, to distract the church 
and disquiet the world with their bigoted notions, arrogant 
claims and conflicting measures. 

There may be differences of philosophical speculation, and 
peculiarities in benevolent operations, and varieties of method 
and form, which shall give to different seminaries their distinc- 
tive characteristics. In this there is no ground of anxiety nor 
complaint. But when any of these peculiarities are thrust for- 
ward as matters of paramount importance, and made the strong 
points of appeal to either popular favor or popular odium, it be- 



1888.] Design of T%eological Sendnariei* 197 

comes no longer honorable nor innocent. It is sectarianism 
in its degraded fonn, doing its hateful work and exposing its 
selfish spirit. The next downward step is to the use ofall the 
catch^words and cant-phrases which are meant to mark the par- 
ty and delude the multitude. 

That high and holy effort, which seeks to furnish the most 
efficient ministry for the world, can have no fellowship with 
such unworthy expedients. Neither does the church nor the 
world need any more new theological seminaries, whose foun- 
dations are laid in popular prejudices, amid sectarian collisions, 
clamoring for their share of the charities of the church on the sole 
ground of their party organization. And that policy, which 
seeks to build itself upon such local and factitious excitements, 
is not only worldly and wicked, hut miserably short sightedJ 
The flowing tide will soon ebb, and leave them standing high, 
and dry upon the beach. 

3. jUiey must not interfere in ecclesiastical govemtnent. 

The professors in theological seminaries have as men all the 
civil and social, and as ministers all the ecclesiastical rights and 
privileges which others have. In proportion to their wisdom and 
piety, their counsel and influence are valuable, m all these rela* 
tions. But as professors of theology their sole business is the in- 
struction and discipline of the precious sons of the church under 
their care, to make them ministers such as the world needs. Their 
connection with a theological seminary adds no prerogatives to 
any other relation which they may sustain. As such, neither 
singly nor combined have they any thing to do with the legis-^ 
lative or judicial affairs of the church. They are not set as 
judges in Israel, nor as watchmen upon the walls of Zion. 
The keys are not in their hands, — ^they have no power to bind 
or loose. It is not for them to hunt out heresy, nor arraign or 
expel it from the church of God. She has her own organiza- 
tions for that purpose, and they are bound both to the church 
and to Jesus Christ to be prompt and faithful. But in these 
matters, theological seminaries have no right to interfere. It is 
a direct violation of the apostolic injunction — " Let none of you 
suffer as a thief, or as an evil doer, or as a busy body in other 
men's matters.*' 

The danger may not be very great, that theological semina- 
ries shall publicly seize the sceptre and rod of discipline and 
wield them directly over the ministry and membership of the 
churches. But there are many ways of stepping quite beyond 



198 Design of Tieologkal Semnariei. [Jam* 

their sphere in these matters. They have facilities for a wide 
spread influence upon other minds. Bj conrespondencey and 
personal interviews, and occasional meetings, rumors may be 
spread and prejudices excited and combinations formed against 
an obnoxious man or measure or party, which may as effectual* 
ly shape results and secure a desired issue as if they were upon 
the judgment seat. Yea, when regular ecclesiastical trials 
have issued contrary to their wishes, they may put all these 
means in requisition to gain their sinister purposes in spite of 
constitutional rules and christian order. 

This is a direct usurpation of the authority of God^s house, 
and involves the very essence of spiritual tyranny. No member 
of a. theological seminary can use in this way the facilities of 
his station for purposes of ecclesiastical discipline, with right- 
eousness or decency. He was not put in that station for that 
purpose. He is meddling with what belongs to others. He 
is perverting that which was given to him for another object, 
and committing an offence against the order and peace of the 
church, for which there can be no other justification, than that 
*^ the end sanctifies the means.'' 

4. 7%e^ must stand responMle to the enlightened sentiment 
of the chrutian church. 

There are various sources of supervision to which theologi- 
cal seminaries may be made responsible. It may be directly to 
the civil power — ^to a church judicatory — to a self-constituted 
association — or to enlightened christian sentiment. Instances, 
in this country and in Europe, may be found in all these varie- 
ties ; and it is an open question — which is the best adapted to 
their great design ? 

Few probably in this country will be found in favor of direct 
responsibility to the State, This may be tolerated in Germany 
ana the different monarchical governments of Europe, but can 
hardly consist with the genius of a free republic. Changing 
polidcs and shifting majorities must cause such a perpetual inter- 
ference in its plans and operations, as effectually to break down 
its stability and power of doing good to the world. 

Where the responsibility is to ecclesiastical authority, the 
danger is much the same both in kind and degree. If sectarian- 
ism did not control, and there were few liabilities to the .fluctu- 
ations of party majorities, the evils would in proportion be few 
and small. But when contentions and divisions occur, scarcely 
less violent than in political parties, the institution itself must be 



1838.] Design of Theological Semfutries. 1 99 

agitated by the storms and tempests which are about it. Eve- 
ry movement of the elements on which it rests is felt, and the 
unity of its design, and the efficiency of its efforts must be disturb- 
ed. This cannot be^the best position for any institution, which 
is to regard the general good and labor for the whole world. 

To be amenable to a self-constittUed body, itself a sect— se- 
lecting its members on avowedly sectarian principles, and fenc- 
mg itself round with sectarian regulations, can eventuate in 
nothing else but a sectarian theological seminary. 

But where as ministers, all are responsible to their own ec- 
clesiastical organizations, and as professors, are held amenable 
to a board of trust, which has its civil charter, giving plenary 
powers of administration and perpetuation of their own body, 
and then both its boards of trust and instruction amenable to 
the enlightened public sentiment of the christian community^ 
we have all the security and effectual guardianship that can be 
attained, without the dangers of sectarian influences and party 
collisions. But it is the inttlli^ent christian public to which 
it must be held responsible. The christian public are alone 
interested, and the enlightened portion of it alone competent, to 
decide in regard to its merits. In this way we have the same 
security that we have for any free institution in the land. It 
can prosper no further than they approve, nor become heretical,, 
any further than they shall become the abettors of heresy. If 
the wise and the good are satisfied with i^ they give it their 
patronage and their prayers ; if they are dissatisfied, they with- 
draw their influence and their support, and the institution dies. 

That institution has the surest guarantee for its permanent 
usefulness, which is entrenched in the judgment and afl!ectioii» 
of the most intelligent, stable, and pious in the land. 

5. Ecclesiastical bodies mast not grant licenses but at the 
conmleiion of a full course of study. 

The proper judicatories of the church are alone competent to 
regulate this matter. Theological seminaries can do no more than 
give their opinion and counsel. This however is plain, that, 
without a mutual understanding and cooperatian on this subject, it 
were far better to dispense with theological seminaries altogether. 
They must be comparatively useless, and the expense of their 
endowments thrown away, if the youth under their training be 
hurried into the mmistry after a few months' attention to the 
preparatory studies. If this is all that is requisite to fit a young 
num for the most responsible of all stations, theo let not the 



900 Detign of T%eohgical Seminaries^ [ Jak. 

cbarch be burdened with the UDnecessary charge, wx mocked 
with the expectation, that better education will make any bet- 
ter ministry. 

This is not the place to dwell upon the fallacy of such opin- 
ions, nor to show that piety, though essential to the minbtry, 
must nevertheless be accompanied with an enlightened and en- 
larged understanding to fit them for their great design in con- 
verting the world. Nothing can more effectually cut every 
smew of her strength, and leave the church weak and de- 
fenceless to every assailant, than the hasty admission of her 
:8ons to the sacred ministrations at the altar. They must be 
able to teach, and apt to teach, or they can only be ^* the Uind 
leaders of the blind.^' And there is no patent process by which 
you can work this aptitude into mind, without its own exertion. 
There is no charm about any institution, or any boasted method 
of quicker and better preparation, that is about to make men 
*'' wise to win souls," without taxing their own energies, and 
obliging them to think deep and study long and intensely. 
There have been many such experiments, but they all fail, just 
as common sense would have predicted, because they go against 
nature. It is time the church had learned enough from her 
own sad experience, to be never deluded again by such misera- 
ble pretensions. Until the young man is well prepared for the 
sacred office it is no help to the church to induct him into it. 
By no means is it so much the number, notwithstanding all her 
waste places, as the qualifications of her ministers, about which 
the church ought to be deeply solicitous. Much is gained, 
in the case of every hasty young man, who is kept for a year 
-out of the pulpit and at his proper studies. He is thus pre- 
pared to do something henceforth to the purpose, and the church 
IS saved from the withering influence of a whole yearns crude 
ministrations and rash measures. A full course should be in- 
sisted on, and no exceptions should ever be tolerated which 
would weaken the general rule. Intended kindness to the in- 
dividual is treachery to the cause of religion. 

6. T%e number of theological seminaries may safely be left 
4o the results of fair competition. 

The present tendencies doubtless are to an inordinate multi- 
plication of them. The claims of the world and the eflbrts of 
the church to meet them would of themselves augment the 
number, and then the^e comes in all the additional incentives 
iirom local interests, sectarian zeal, and party prejudices. Dread 



1888.] Design of ITuohgical Seminaries. 901 

responsibOities rest upon those who engage m the establishment 
of new institutions. Much time and labor, money and talent 
must be expended upon every such object, and if it was not 
needed tbe whole has been perverted, and the prime movers 
stand responsible to heaven for it. 

But to God alone must this responsibility be left. It is not 
for man to arraign and try their motives and estimate their guilt. 
The church has only to determine her own wants in this par- 
ticular, and this it will do. Those institutions which are need- 
ed will be sustained, and all which are found useless will of 
course fall. No local interests or factitious excitements can 
long avail to keep in existence that which is not needed. A 
discerning public will eventually determine which ought to live 
and which ought to die. And while the individual responsibil- 
ity is to (jod, the decbion of life or death to the institution is in 
the intelligence of the church to determine which and what are 
fulfilling the great designs of God. The end in view is an effi- 
cient minbtry for the world — not for a sect — ^not for a local ob- 
ject — not as the fruits of a transient excitement — but far a world, 
and untU a world is brought back to God's allegiance. The 
seminary must therefore lay its foundations broad and deep, and 
its plans wide and extensive, looking not at the interests of a 
year or an age, but onwards till the millennium. Results per- 
manent as truth, broad as Adam's dying race are to be gained, 
and that institution, which looks with a steady eye and holy 
aim to these enduring interests, will find its sure support in the 
permanency of the principles which it has consulted. The timid 
and the time-serving may come and go, applaud and revile, 
but the enlightened and the wbe will give to it their confidence, 
their patronage and their prayers. Tremendous as the respon- 
sibility b, upon those who engage in the new enterprise, if their 
honest aim b the good of the world and the glory of God, and 
their measures are wise to win the end, the issue has nothing 
for them to fear. Their work will stand and prosper, while a 
thousand splendid projects and gilded bubbles burst around 
them. The event may be safely left to the decbion of the 
Lord and his people. 

7. 7%fy must be the subjects of the unceasing prayers of 
the church. 

God, and not man, will have the glory of the world's subjec- 
tion to Jesus Christ. It b to be e&cted '^ not by might, nor 
by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord." Nothing can be 

Vol. XL No. 29. 26 



90S Design of Theological Seminanei. [ Jak. 

more certain, than that God will blast all the undevout projects 
and expectations of his professing children. Especially upon 
theological seminaries must there be a constant descent of the 
dew of heaven. The board of supervision — of instruction — 
the youth who are instructed — all must feel the moving influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit, or no good will result to Zion. And 
this influence is given '' to those who ask himJ* And while 
those connected with the seminary should '^ pray without ceas- 
ing," it is the special duty of tlie church to remember these 
^'schools of the prophets" daily. They are not to be expect- 
ed to prosper, unless your prayers abound. They are your 
instruments for the world's conversion — your instruments to 
teach and to train up a pious and efficient ministry for the 
world, not to do your work oi prayer and supplication^ God's 
blessing will not then be added without your prayers. Better 
forget almost any other instrumentality in your visits to the 
throne of grace, than your sources of theological instruction. 
Here are some of your most precious jewek ; the hope of the 
world ; the whole dependence under God for filling up your 
foreign and domestic delds of labor. A desertion here, a with- 
drawment of divine influence from these points, sends the surest, 
deadliest blight over all the prospects of Zion. Who can doubt 
that the numbers, and piety, and success of the ministry, must 
be proportioned to the prayers which God hears for this end ? 
If you would have the world converted to God, brethren, you 
must pray much and fervently for the ministry, by whose labors 
and self-denial the work is chiefly to be accomplished. You 
must pray much and fervently also for those institutions, whose 
great design is to furnish this efficient ministry for the world's 
redemption. 

I close, by giving the assurance that this theological seminary 
shall be faithfijjly devoted to the great design, which we have 
been considering — a faithful ministry for the world. The 
course of instruction will be liberal, full and thorough. The 
system of theology as here explained and defended will be the 
Calvinistic, in the general form in which it appears in the works 
of Edwards, Bellamy, Dwight, etc. New England theology 
will be the standard of our orthodoxy — the system of faith 
which we cordially believe has the Bible for its basis. But we 
do not feel at liberty to call any man, master, in the sense of 
authority over our faith. We shall examine the opinions of 
the men we most favor, with as much fireedom as those who 



1838.] JJhiiatii to Ckristianity. 803 

dfShv the widest from us. We shall state, illustrate and defend 
our opinions in our own way, and make our own devout ex- 
amination of truth the measure of our instructions. 

And while this will be the course of instruction, we will al- 
low the same freedom to the youth under our care. We will 
urge them to make their own enlightened and honest convic- 
tions the guide of their faith and practice. While we avow the 
principles of our faith and the grounds of our orthodoxy, we ab- 
jure all sectarianism and will leave others to the fi-ee and honest 
expression of their own sentiments. We pledge our health and 
strength — our time and talents — our influence and example 
to the undivided object for which this seminary is founded — 
the training up an efficient ministry for the world. We expect 
the confidence and support of the pious — we pray for the ap- 
probation and blessing of heaven. 



ARTICLE X. 



On the Intre^uenct of the Allusions to Christianity 

IN Greek and Roman Writers. 

TruuUtad from the Latin of H. T. Ttehirner. By Horatio B. Haekett, ProloMor of Lao- 

f oaf 09, Brown CJnivorsity. 

That the Greek and Roman writers, who were contempo- 
rary with the apostles, have left nothing on record either in re- 
gard to the birth and actions of our Lord, or the early origin of 
the christian church, can excite the surprise of no one. For 
the Greeks and Romans were not accustomed to visit Jerusalem 
in the manner, that they were in the habit of resorting, the 
former to Rome, and the latter, to Athens. Very few, except 
soldiers, magistrates and merchants travelled to Palestine, which 
was situated on the remotest borders of the empire, and desti- 
tute of all those objects, which would be likely to attract either 
the votaries of science, or men of pleasure. As to the infor- 
mation concerning Jesus Christ, which it is probable, that Pon- 
tius Pilate, by whose authority the Saviour was put to death, 
transmitted to Tiberius, the number of those, who received it, 
was but smaU, and even they did not regard it as in any way 



&04 AUusians to ChriitianUy. [Jabt* 

remarkable, or worthy of very particular notice.* The Greeks 
and Romans despised the Jews as a superstitious and illiterate 
people, and for this reason they neither read their sacred books, 
with whose very language in ract they were unacquainted, nor 
felt any great curiosity in regard to what took place among them. 
It is not strange, therefore, that the Greek and Roman writers, 
who were contemporary with the apostles, were either ignorant 
of the christian sect or silent concerning them. 

But how is it to be explained, that even those authors, who 
wrote in the reign of Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian and the Anto- 
nines, so very seldom refer to the Christians, although spread, 
as they then were, throughout all parts of th^ Roman world ? 
Were the christian churches, during a whole century (for Domi- 
tian obtained the sovereignty in the year 81 and Marcus Aure- 
lius died in the year 180^ so buried in a comer, that they were 
altogether unknown ? Might we not have expected, that the 
eyes of mankind would have been turned towards those, who 
were sometimes the objects of punishment by the magistrates 
and who still oftener suffered irom the violence of the multi- 
tude, who were enraged against them for despising their gods ? 
Were those, who make no mention of the Christians, ignorant 
of them ? or what reasons in short had they for their silence ? 
It is not without cause surely, that such inquiries are made ; 
and since they have recently been brought forward anew, and 
have been pronounced worthy of a more critical investigation, 
than they have yet received, by a man, to whose opinions we 
are accustomed to listen with respect, we deem it proper to 
give the subject a brief discussion, especially as it is not alto- 
gether foreign to a department of study, in which we are par- 
ticularly interested.! 
■■ ■ ■ .■ ■ — ■ — '■ ■ 'I ■ . I. I ^1 .11 .. 

* The writings, which are known at the present day under the 
name of Acts of Pilate, are certainiy not genuine: nor can any one 
easily believe, that Pilate wrote to the emperor those things, which 
Tertullian pretends were written by him. But that Pilate made a 
report to Tiberius in reference to the case of Jesus Christ, is very 
credible : since it belonged to the procurators to do this on occasions 
of the like nature. CA-. HenkU De Pontii Pilati Actis in causa Jesu 
Christ! ad Imp. Tiberium niisdis Probabilia, in ejusd. Opusc. Acad, 
p. 199 sqq. 

f This man is the learned Eiehstaedt, who in bis essay on the 
question, whether Lucian intended by his writings to advance the 
christian cause, says, that he cherislies the hope that this subject may 
yet be more fully investigated. Jena, 1822. p. 29. 



1838.] AUusions to ChrUtumity. M& 

The question, however, which we propose to answer, has 
reference only to those Greek and Roman writers, who flour- 
ished from the time of Domitian to the end of the age of the 
Antonines. For from this time the Christians, having come 
forth, as it were, from the shade into the public light, and the 
view of men, found henceforth both advocates and not a few 
opponents of their cause ; and in the third century the most 
distinguished of the Neo-Platonists, who were almost alone in 
their cultivation of philosophy and Greek letters, not only men-^ 
tioned them, but also assailed their opinions and principles. On 
the contrary those, who wrote in the reigns of Domitian, Tra- 
jan, Hadrian and the Antonines, alluded to the Christians but 
seldom ; for the most part they take no notice of them what- 
ever ; in a few instances they speak of them briefly, and, as it 
were, incidentally ; and in still fewer cases, enter into argument 
against them.* 

Among the Greeks, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, Oenomaus, 
who in the time of Hadrian anticipated the part of Lucian as a 
derider of the gods Maximus Tyrius and Pausanias, are entirely 
silent in respect to the Christians. In Plutarch, it is true, some 
have imagined, that they found an allusion to them in that pas- 
sage of the Symposion, where reference is made to certain phi- 
losophers, who on account of their teaching, ovventtxwtaTOp 
MM rot; fiiov TO iXntCeiv (that hope is the great supporter of 
life) and, aXovatjg ikntdog ovif i^dwovaijg ovx aviurov sivai rey 
fitoi^ (that life, unless there be hope to sweeten it is too wretch- 
ed to be endured), were called iXntartuoi, But since there is 
nothing in this place to lead us to suppose, that it is a hope of 
heaven, such as the Christians cherished, which is here intend- 

* It seems however by no means improbable, that they may have 
been mentioned in some one or other of tboee works of antiquity, 
which are no longer extant. Nor should we particularly object to 
it, if any one is disposed to think that the hands of superstitious men 
may have erased or omitted in the ancient manuscripts all those pas- 
sages, which contained reproachful allusions to the Christians. That 
this was sometimes done may be inferred with some appearance of 
probability from the fact, that the dialogue of Lucian on the death 
of PeregrinuB, in which the Christians are violently assailed, is want- 
ing in a great many copies: and in one of the Royal manuscripts, 
there occurs an omission with the remark : irtavd-a notqti&7i knortt 
in$Q iaxt Ili^sygafcv ttltvifis XoyoVy dia to iv xov t^ inoaxemnit dg %w 
X^tauoPiafiW. See the note in Opp. Luciani ed. ReUz, tom.1 11. p. 925. 



206 AUtuiom to Christianiiy^ [Jak. 

ed, and since the Christians, who lived in the time of Plutarch, 
neither called themselves philosophers, nor were so called by 
others, it is utterly incredible, that this term, Elpisticsy should 
contain a tacit allusion to diem.* Thus Plutarch, like the au- 
thor just mentioned, says nothing in relation to the Christians. 
This silence now appears the more singular, because he was a 
man, who took an interest in all which is human, who watched 
with the most careful eye the religious aspects of his time, who 
inculcated many principles very similar to those of the Christians, 
and without doubt had some acquaintance with the state and 
history of the Jews.f Next to Plutarch, we should naturally 
refer to Oenomaus as the author most likely to have left some 
testimony in regard to the christian church. He lived in the 
time of Hadrian and wrote a treatise on the falsehood of oracles 
under the title of: q-foga yotjtofw (detection of impostors). Had 
he intended this now as au attack upon superstition, it would 
have been very pertinent to his object to have commended the 
Christians for their contempt of oracles and their abhorrence of 
the arts of deception ; but if, on the contrary, his design was to 
subvert religion itself, by holding up the gods to ridk;ule, it 
would then seem to have fallen very naturally in his way, to 
deride and censure those, who were introducing new rites of 
worship. Oenomaus however did not record so much as a 
word in regard to the Christians. We gather this, not only 
from the remains, scanty, it is true, of the book just mentioned, 
but from the fact, that Eusebius neither commends him as the 
eulogist, nor censures him as the accuser of the Christians.^ 

We turn to the Roman writers and we find nearly all of them 
observing tlie same silence on the subject, which is observed 
by the Greeks* Liucan indeed, Silius ItaVicus, Quinctilian, 
Martial, Florus, and Curtius Rufus, as they were eitlier poets, 

* This passage of Plutarch is found L.IV. Qiiaeat IV. c.a p. 503. 
torn. III. ed. fVyUenbach, Heumann in Actis phiios. Vol. III. p. 911 
seq., has it, Christian Elpistics : Brucker, in Hist. Crit Philoa. torn. 
HI. p. 244, influenced by satisfactory reaaons, denies the correctness 
of this. Programma Leuschneri super. 

f Which is ascertained e Convivalium Disputationem Liber IV. 
Quaest V. p. 507, and Quaest. VI. p. 512. 

I The fragments of Oenomaus, in regard to whom there is some 
account in litbricii Bibl. Graec. Vol. III. p. 522 seq. ed. Harles, are 
found in Eusebius, in his Praeparatio Evangelica L. V. e. 18 at the 
close, and L. VI. o. 6—7. 



1888.] JJhuwm to Chrutiamijf. Wl 

or teachers of rhetoric, or historians of events prior to their own 
time, bad no very natural occasion for speaking of the christian 
sect. But that there should not occur even the shghtest allu- 
sion to them in Juvenal also, who was occupied entirely in de- 
scribing the mannei's of his age, nor again in Gellius, and Apu- 
leius, may appear less easy of explanation. Juvenal in partic- 
ular had very frequent opportunities to notice them : as, for ex- 
ample, in tliat passage, iu which referring to those, who for- 
sook the religion of their country, he says : 

''The laws of Rome those blinded bigots slight 

In superstitious dread of Jewish rite. 

To Moses and his mystic vohime true/' etc.* 

Was it not here directly in bis way to censure also the Christians, 
who by their observance of foreign rites, showed equal contempt 
of the Romaas ? Aulus Gellius in his Noctes Atticae has 
brought togetlier from every quarter whatever seemed to him 
worthy of notice ; but he has passed over entirely all account 
of the christian religion ; and in like manner Luceius Apuleius 
has neither mentioned the Christians in his Metamorphoses, 
where be speaks of the sacred rites and mysteries of his time ; 
nor in his dissertations on the deity of Socrates and the world, 
in which the opinkxis of the Platonists are reviewed, has be di- 
rected any of his remarics against them. 

Thus nearly all tbe writers of this period are silent. Some 
of them indeed mentkxi the Christians, but it is for the most 
part in very few words, so that it has the appearance of acci- 
dent, rather tlian of d^gn. No one speaks of them at all be- 
fore tbe age of Trajan : buttof tliose, who wrote in tbe reign of 
this emperor, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny Secundus, the 
Younger, bave made mention of them. Tacitus, in giving an 
account of the conflagratk)n of the city, which was supposed to 
have been set on fire by order of Nero, relates, that the empe- 
ror for the pui-pose of averting suspicion from himself, charged 
the crime upon the Christians, and inflicted on them punishments 
of the mo6t studied cruelty ; and in this connection he explains 
the origin of the name wluch they bore, and characterizes their 
religion as a pernicious superstition and their spirit as that of 
hatred towards the human race.f. Suetonius m his life of Ne- 

• Satyra XIV. v. 100 sqq. 

t This well known passage is found Annal. L. XV. e. 44» 



806 AUuriom to ChriitiaaUy. [Jait^ 

ro* alludes to the same punishments and speaks of the Chrisdans 
as a class of men addicted to a new and mischievous superstition : 
and the same writer in his life of Claudius states, that the Jews 
were expelled from Rome by this emperor, because they were 
perpetudly engaging in disturbances, to which they were instiga- 
ted by a certain Chrestus.f This Chrestus some have been dis* 
posed to regard not as Christus or Christ, but as a man of Greek 
extraction, whose history is unknown, save that he was a pros- 
elyte to the Jewish faith and excited seditions at Rome. The 
ground of this opinion is, that Suetonius, had he been ever so 
ignorant of the christian cause, could not have asserted in re- 
gard to Christ, that he was personally at Rome and excited se- 
ditions there in the reign of Claudius.^ But the fact is, that the 
objection, which the learned men who entertain this view, allege, 
is not authorised by the passage, from which they pretend to 
derive it. Suetonius relates, that Claudius banished the Jews 
from Rome, because they were odious to him on account of 
their constant disturbances, and he supposed that the author of 
these disturbances was Chrestus, since he had heard that he, 
although executed as a criminal, had found many foUowers, 
who admitted his claims as king of the Jews, and who still sur- 
vived him. But that the Jews stirred up commotions at Rome, 
and that Christ was at Rome in the time of Claudius and ex- 
cited disturbances there, he does not afBrm. Hence there b 
nothing to forbid the supposition, that Suetonius intended to re- 
fer to Christ, who by the mere change of a single letter was, 
as Lactantius testifies, frequently called Chrestus dso by others.^ 
Nor is there any real force in the suggestion of Erasmus, that 
the idea of instigaUng can be understood only of a person, who 
is actually present. For when it is said, that the Jews were 
perpetwdly raising disturbances, it cannot be meant that they 
were instigated by the personal agency of the same author. 
Suetonius, therefore, has mentioned the Christians twice, but 

• c 16. t c. 25. 

X This was the opinion of HUscher in his essay on the Chrestua, 
of whom Suetonius makes mention. But we have not been able to 
examine either tiiis or the essays of Heumann and Wirth on the 
Chrestus of Suetonius. 

§ Institt. div. L. IV. c. 7. The latest editor of Suetonius, Baum- 
gwrten-Cruduij Vol. IL p. 55^ although 'not decided in his opinion, 
atiU fovors our view. 



1888.] AOmom to C^rutianity. 209 

hi fewer words than Tacittis and in so cursory a way, that he 
seems to have been hardly aware of their existence. 

In the well known letter of Pliny Secundus, which he wrote 
to the emperor Trajan, when he was propraetor of Bithynia, 
about the year 104, we have not only more ample, but more 
certain also, and more important information in regard to the 
Christians. From this letter we learn, that they were now dis- 
persed in all directions throughout Bithynia, so that many of 
the temples were abandoned, and the customary rites of religion 
neglected. For this reason they were accused before the pro- 
praetor, who considered it his duty to institute an inquiry in re- 
gard to these despisers of the public religion, and to adopt mea- 
sures of severity against them. The course, which was pursued, 
he explains to the emperor very minutely, and acquaints him 
also with such further particulars, as he had ascertained in re- 
gard to the sect ; such as, that on a stated day they were ao 
customed to assemble before lights and sing an hymn to Christy 
as Oody and to bind themselves with an oathy that they would 
not be guilty of any crime, but would abstain from theft, rob^ 
bery, acmteryy violation of promises, and withholding of proper^ 
ty committed to their care : and he adds, that the contagion of 
this superstition (for so be denominates the christian faith) had 
spread, before he had any thought of interfering to check it, 
not only through the cities, but the villages also and the coun- 
try in general. Such facts, as it became him in his capacity of 
propraetor to lay before the emperor, he examined with proper 
care. But their opinions on religious subjects he had not accu- 
rately investigated ; nor bad he read their sacred books ; and 
that, which he wrote concerning them, was written, not for the 
purpose of being preserved as a historical record, but merely 
that the emperor might know, what had been done in the case, 
and might be enabled to judge in regard to the expediency and 
nature of any further action.* 

* Every one knows, that this letter is the ninety-sixth of the tenth 
book of the letters of Pliny ; in the last edition of which, Gierigius, 
Tom. IT. p. 498 tqq, has very ably discussed the question of its genuine- 
ness, and maintains it successftilty against Semler. Haversaat (Ver- 
(heidigung der PUniseKen Briefe iiber die Christen gegen die Einwen- 
dungen des Hm. D, Sender, Gdttingen, 1783) took the same ground 
before him. This letter, which is found in all the manuscripts, which 
corresponds exactly to the characters of Pliny and Trajan, which 
agrees with those circumstances, which we learn from other sources 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 27 



210 AUuiiom to Ckri$iianiiif. [Jar. 

The same infrequency of allusion to the ChristiaiiSy which 
marked the time of Trajan, marked also that of Hadrian. For 
besides Hadrian himself, who deserves certainly to be ranked 
among Roman authors (an enthusiastic lover of poetry and let- 
ters in general he b calied by Spartianus),''^ Arrian b the only 
writer, who has referred to them. All the productions of Hadrian 
mdeed have perished, except one letter written to Servianus^ 
which Vopiscus transcribed from the works of Phlegon, a freed 
man of Hadrian and inserted in the life of Satuminus^f In this 
letter the emperor inveighs against the manners of the Egyp- 
tians, i. e. of the Alexandrians, pronouncing them a most sedi- 
tious, false and violent class of men ; and on this occasion he 
speaks of the Christians in language as follows : " Those, who 
worship Serapis, are Christians ; and these are those devoted to 
tbe service of Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ. 
There is no ruler of the Jewish synagogue there, no Samaritan^ 
no presbyter of the Christians, who is not an astrologer, a sooth- 
sayer, a diviner. The patriarch himself, when he comes to 
Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by othecs, 
Christ." At Alexandria, whither men of every descriptkni 
were accustomed to find their way, he had gathered some vague 
knowledge in regard to the Christians, as well as the observers 
of other religious rites. The names of presbyters and bishops 
had thus come to his ears. But as he had vastly more curiosi- 
ty than love of truth, and was precipitate in his conclusions, he 
neglected to examine the accurtey of what he heard and thus 
confounded the Christians with the worshippers of Serapis, who 
were the sect, to which most of the Alexandrians belonged. 
Hence too it was, that he imputed to tbe Christians the same 
arts of divination, which the adherents of other new and foreign 
sects were accustomed to practise, which although accounted 
odious indeed, and frequentiy punished in the case of the astro- 
logers, were still eagerly sought even by the emperors them- 

in regard to tbe Christiansy which has every internal evidence in its 
favor, and is mentioned by Tertullian, Eusebiua and Jerome ; this 
letter, I say, together with the reply of Trajan must surely be consid- 
ered as genuine, unless you are willing to pronounce all the records 
of antiquity spurious, and to deny the credibility of history in every 
case whatever. 

* Id vita Hadriani, c. 13. pu 13. Scriptorum historiae Augostae^ 
ed. Lips. 

f c. 8. p. 435 of the book named. 



1838.] Attusians to airiiiumity. 21 1 

selves. It is thus, it would seem, that we are to account for it, 
that he should ma^e the altogether false and absurd remarks 
respecting the Christians, which have been quoted above. No- 
thing therefore, which Hadrian has left, throws light upon the 
early history of the church. Nor are we indebted for any thing 
of this nature to Arrian, who flouri3hed in his reign. All, that 
we can infer from the passage, in which he refers to the Gali- 
laeans for the sake of illustration, is that the Christians were 
considered by Arrian or Epictetus (if these are the words of the 
master rather than of the disciple), as men, who from the influ- 
ence of phrenzy and habit {vno fiavmg xui vno e&ovg) could 
show the same contempt of pain and death, with which reason 
taught the philosopher to regard them.^ 

The^e, so iar as we know, are all the instances, in which there 
occur any reference to the Christians in Greek and Latin wri- 
ters until the age of the Antonines. 

At length in the age of the Antonines, the Christians found 
able and eloquent advocates of their cause, began to emerge 
fix>m their obscurity, and to attract the notice of mankind. 
Still the eyes of all were not turned towards them even then ; 
many, if they were not ignorant of them, at least overlooked 
them, and no one foresaw in the rise of the Christians the speedy 
downfell of the whole system of the public religion, in this 
age, however, especially towards its close, a more general atten- 
tion was fixed upon them, than had been at any time before ; so 
that some noticed them in brief, yet explicit terms ; while others 
attacked them at greater length, and employed argument against 
them. 

They are mentioned and censured by Galen, a very celebra- 
ted physician of that period, and by Marcus Antoninus. Gralen 
refers to them in two places. In one he is speaking of certain 
physicians and philosophers, who adhere with such obstinacy 
to their own views, that he, who disputes with them, does noth- 
ing but trifle. Having compared them to crooked pieces of 

* This pasBBge is contained in Epicteti Dissertatiooum L. IV. c. 7. 
p. 618. Tom, 1. ed. Schweig, — But in regard to another passage oc- 
carriog, L. II. c 3. p. 214 sq., we dare not pronounce on the ques- 
tion, whether it refers to the Jews or Christians. The Jews indeed, 
here mentioned, are called fiamunatj which seems to indicate, that 
Christians are meant. But Jews might be so termed, either on ac« 
count of their frequent ablutions, or the baptism, to which proselytea. 
were accustomed to submit on their adoption of the Jewish &itb. 



412 AUusians to Chrisiiamty. [Jan. 

wood, which can never be straightened^ and to withered trees, 
which, although they are transferred to a new soil, are still un- 
fruitful, he adds, that it is easier to persuade the followers of 
Moses or Christ to change their sentiments, than it is such phy- 
sicians and philosophers. ^ He charges the Christians therefore 
with an obstinate and unyielding disposition, which made it im- 
possible to reason with them with any hope of success. In 
the other place he is opposing a certain Archigenes who had 
maintained, that there are eight variations of the pulse, and says, 
that he ought to support his views, if not by actual demonstra- 
tion, yet by appropriate argument, unless a person, as if he be- 
longed to the school of Moses or Christ, (jag eig Movaov »a^ 
X()iatov dttttgiptjv aqftyfievos) is willing to take assertions for 
proof (vofiovg avanodHxtovg),j He censures therefore equally 
Christians and Jews as men, who give a blind assent to dogmas, 
which have never been proved and which are sustained by no 
evidence. 

In a similar manner the Christians are mentioned by Marcus 
Antoninus, in his Meditations. In that celebrated passage in 
which their name occurs, the imperial philosopher inquires, 
what it is, which should produce that state of the soul, as it is 
about to leave the body, by which, whether it survive the 
change, or perish, it may be rendered prompt and ready for the 
issue, which awaits it, and he answers the question by saying that 
this readiness, to izoifiov tovto, ought to spring from a proper con- 
viction of the mind itself, dno idixijg ngtoicjg, such as is charac- 
teristic of the truly wise man, fttj xaxu tpiktjv xagaTuCtPf ^Sg ov 
XQiOTiavoi, not from mere obstinacy, such as is accustomed to 
produce its effect in the case of the Christians. And the same 
author adds further, that it becomes man to depart from life 
kekoyiOfiivoDgy with consideration, xa« acfivag, with dignity, 
icac taaxi xa$ dkkov neiaat, in such a way as to recommend by 
his example to others also the like firmness of mind, but arpa^oi* 
itog^ not in the manner of actors, declaiming on the stage ; which 
last words appear to refer to the Christians, who, as they were 
led to punbhment, frequently either boasted of their hope and 

* This passage is found in bin book de Pulsuum DifTerentits, L. 
III. c. 3. Tom. Vlil. p. 68. ed. Cbart. Tom. VIII. p. 651. ed. Lipw- 
ensis, recently illustrated by KiAehnius^ my colleague, a most accom- 
plished master of Grecian literature. 

1 1. 1. L. II. c. 4. Tom, VIII. p. 43. ed. Chart. Tom. VIII. p. 
579. ed. Lipe. 



1838,] AJbaiom to CkrutUmUy. 313 

joy, or suQg an hymn to Christ, or exhorted their brethren to 
constancy and contempt of death. Marcus Antoninus therefore 
considered the Christians, many of whom were persecuted in 
his own reign, as men, who in despising death, which some of 
them in their eagerness for martyrdom are said to have even 
sought, exhibited, not wisdom, but stubbornness and obstinacy, 
and who departed firom life, as if from a stage, like actors re- 
hearsing their parts. ^ 

This is the only place, in which Marcus Antoninus has spoken 
of the Christians ; nor can we adduce any thing further, which 
gives us more accurate information in regard to his opinions con- 
cerning them. For those two letters, which are attributed to him, 
one of which he is said to have addressed to the Roman senate, 
the other to the Common of Asia {to uo$pop '^amg, sc. oi/ye^ 
d(^iov)y i. e. to the common council of the Asiatic cities, we regard 
as spurious, and think, that they were forged by some Christians 
with the design of recommending to the emperor of their times 
a lenient policy towards themselves, from the example of those 
previous emperors, whom posterity most applauded. In regard 
to the former of these letters, in which Marcus communicates to 
the Roman Senate mtelligence respecting a signal victory, which 
he had obtained over the Marcomanni near the river Granua, 
and which he ascribes to the prayers of the thundering legion, 
no defence can be attempted for a moment.f in support of the 
genuineness of the other, some things were formerly said and 
have of late been repeated, which are not altogether without 
plausibility. But still there are many difficulties, which forbid 
assent. For not to insist on the manifest inconsistency between 
the office of the emperor, who as Fontifex Maximus presided 
over the public institutions of religion and the remark at the 
commencement of the letter, that it belongs to the gods them- 
selves to punish the despisers of their divinity, not to men, it is 

* This place is found in the Coromentaries of Marcus AntoniDus, 
L. XI. c. 3. The word nagaxa^siag is derived from military opera- 
tioDR, where line is opposed to line, soldier to soldier. If this be done 
nsbly, it is mere obstinacy and stubbomness^ In like manner the 
word nmQtnwra$a&ai is used L. VIII. c. 48. 

t By KtHntr in the work, Die ^gape oder der geheimne WeUhund dtr 
Chritieny p. 3d9, sqq., against whom Eichstaedt in quarta Exercita- 
tionum Antoniniarum. Also separately published, and recently in- 
aerted in Vol. I. Annalium aeademiae TieoaDsia, has urged auob ar- 
gumentsy that we feel fully eooiSrroed in our opinion. 



214 Allusions to Christianity. [J ah. 

surely a circumstaDce, which must strike ereiy critic as suspi* 
cious, that his epistle is mentioned neither by Athenagoras, who 
addressed his ngsapaa to the same emperor, and omitted noth- 
ing, which could redound to his credit, or would be likely to 
conciliate his favor towards the Christians, nor by Melito even 
in that passage of his Apology presented to the same emperor 
in which he refers to the edict issued by Hadrian and Antoninus 
Pius in favor of the christian party. ^ It is not therefore with- 
out sufficient grounds for the rejection, that we have set aside 
the letters ascribed to Marcus Antoninus and have cited as the 
only pertinent passage in his works the one, which ocoirs in the 
Commentaries, of which the emperor himself is at once the au- 
thor and the subject ; in which the Christians indeed are men- 
tioned, but in such a manner, that he seems to have done it 
from accident, rather than from design. 

But with the exception of Galen and Marcus Antoninus him- 
self, all those, who lived in the age of the Antonines, and made 
mention of the Christians at all, noticed them, not in a few 
words, but with particularity, and entered bto controversy with 
them. For this reason they have been called, and wiUi pro- 
priety too, the first opponents of the Christians ; among whom 
we should mention Crescens, a Cynic, Fronto a very celebrated 
rhetorician and one of the teachers of Marcus Antoninus, Lu- 
cian of Samosata, and finally Celsus, a philosopher either of the 
Epicurean or Platonic school. 

Crescens, who leads the way in the train of these writers, 
lived at Rome in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and there de- 
nounced the Christians in a public manner. He disputed with 
Justin, the Martyr so called, and in revenge for the censure, 
which the latter applied to the philosophers, carried his hostility 
to him so far, as to plot against his life. These facts are made 
known to us by Justin and his disciple Tatian, to whom Euse- 
bius is indebted for all his statements, which relate to Cres- 
cens.f Justin does not indeed state in express terms, that he 
wrote against the Christians ; nor can we infer this from his 
saying, that he, driiAOOMf xai ngog x^9^^ ^^* v^ovfjp to»v noXXatv, 
publicly and for the purpose of gratifying the multitude and ob* 

* Euaehius has preserved a fragment of the Apology of Melito in 
Historia Ecclea. L. IV. c 26. 

f See JtMfiiit Apologia II. c. 3. p. 90 sq., Tatiani oratio adversiis 
Graecoe, c. a p. 960. ed.Bensdid^ et EusMi hist Eccles. L. IV. e. 16. 



1838.] AOHtiani to OiristianUy. 215 

taining their applause, censured the Christians as i^iovg hm 
uoipt^. For aU which this language implies may have been 
done in the form of conireisations, either b a school, or in some 
other of the customary resorts for discussion. But when Jus- 
tin speaks in the same place of questions proposed by himself, 
and replies given to them by (Jrescens, and says, that he is 
ignorant, whether they were carried to the emperors or not, we 
are led to conclude, that Crescens had, not only oral, but also 
written controversy with the Christians. That however he 
was an ordinary and obscure man, and that hb works were but 
little read, is shown with much certainty by the entire absence 
of all allusicHi to him in Greek and Roman writers, and by the 
very rare occurrence of it in christian writers. 

Crescens is followed by Fronto Cirtensis, a very eminent 
rhetorician of the age of the Antonines, and the author of some 
highly celebrated orations and letters, the remains of which 
Angelus Maius has recently discovered and given to the public. 
Antoninus Pius appointed him teacher of Roman eloquence to 
the young princes, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus, and 
honored him with the office of consul. In his being chosen to 
places of such trust and distinction, we have sufficient proof of 
the high estimation, in which he was held. In respect now to 
this man so conspicuous for his scholarship and rank, Minucius 
Felix, his contemporary, has stated in his Octavius, (in which 
work the cause of the Chrbtians is ably defended), that he 
wrote against the Christians, and accused them of holding as- 
semblies, in which they were guilty of incest. Minucius com- 
municates nothing further in regard to him ; for that the argu^ 
ments, which are urged against the Christians by Caecilius,, 
who in the Octavius personates the part of a defender of the 
received religion, were in fact those of Fronto, is a mere con- 
jecture, which some have approved, because Minucius Felix 
appears to have imitated the eloquence of Fronto. Nothbg 
has been transmitted either by Minucius Felix or any other 
writer, which explains either on what occasion Fronto wrote 
against the Christians, or what obiect he proposed to secure by 
his attack upon them. But we adopt perhaps an opinion, which 
probability supports, if not history, when we assume that the 
rhetorician, as he belonged to the court of Marcus Aurelius, in 
whose reign many of the Christians were accused of muider 
and the most miamous licentiousness, wrote against them, for 
the purpose of justifying the emperor in the severity of his 



916 Albm&nt to ChriitUmiijf. [Jah. 

edictB against them. With such a design, he would naturally 
be interested to show, that they were guilty of the charges for 
which they su^red. This, it would seem, is the view, which 
many have taken. The particulars, which we learn in regard 
to Fronto, are indeed few, yet important to be known, because 
we discover from them, that there had arisen enemies of the 
Christians even thus early in the very palace of the emperor, 
and that their apologists had ample cause for vindicating them 
against the crimes, which were imputed to them.^ 

We come next to Lucian. Upon him we shall have occa- 
sion to dwell longer, than was necessary in the case of Fronto. 
This writer mentions the Christians expressly in two places ; 
for the Philopatris, in which there are many things said against 
them, is not from the hand of Lucian of Samosata, but was pro- 
duced so late, as in the time of Julian.f One c^ these passages 
is found in the book, entitled, Alexander or Pseudomantis, 
where it is stated that this Alexander, the founder of certain 
new religious rites, and a crafty impostor, had been accustomed, 
in imitation of the caution, which the guardians of the Eleu- 
sinian mysteries observed in this matter, to exclude equally 
Christians and Epicureans from a knowledge of his secrets.^ 
The other passage, fix>m which Lucian's opinion relative to the 
Christians is known, occurs in his book on the death of Fere- 
grinus, the famous Cynic, who, if Lucian relates the truth, 
ended a life of the basest depravity and crime by burning him- 
self about the year 166, in the presence of a vast concourse of 
people, at Olympia. Lucian here mentions among other things 
in regard to this Peregrinus, who wished to be called Proteus, 
that he had learned vtjv ^ttv/iaaTijp ao(p$€tp tm¥ XQiotMpmv; 
and that having attained among them the rank of prophet and 
hierarch he was worshipped by them as a god ; and on this 
account he stigmatizes them as men, who were credulous and 
who could be easily deceived by any impostor. The same 

* The places in Mirmcitu Felix, which relate to Pronto, occur in 
hia Octavius c. 9 and c. 31. In regard to the life and writings of 
Fronto, Angdus Mahu has treated in a learned manner in M. Cor- 
nelii Frontonis Opp. ed. P. L p. 1 sqq. 

f This has been satisfactorily shown by Qutntr in his diBsertadon 
concerning the age and author of the dialogue, entitled Philopatris, 
and bearing the name of Lucian ; and which is inserted Opp. Luc. 
Tom< IL ed. Rax. p. 706. 

X c 38. p. d44. Tom. II. ed. JSetr. 



1888.] jfOutiMi to OiriHumity. S17 

writer nk>reover has much to say in reference to the zeal of the 
Christians in behalf of Peregrij^us, while he lay in prison and 
chains, on the charge of being a Christian. He represents 
them as assembling from every quarter, and attempting by every 
method to efiect his release, as encouraging and consoling him 
in his captivity and showing to him as much regauti and vene- 
ration, as if he bad been a second Socrates. His design in 
these statements, if we mistake not, was, to make it appear 
that they were men of a fectious spirit and withheld by no 
scruples from any crime, which would promote their cause. 
He still iurther styles the Christians wretches, who in die hope 
that they should prove immortal in soul and body, regard death 
with a stupid contempt, and suffer themselves to be persuaded, 
that they are brethren, because having abandoned the gods of 
the Greeks they worship the crucified sophist, and live accord- 
ing to his precepts ; and ' believe these and other absurdities 
without evidence ; so that it is not strange, that any impostor, 
who understands at all the arts of management, can easily rise 
to wealth among them and impose on their simplicity to any 
extent.^ Thus Lucian censured the Christians as ignorant^ 
credulous and superstitious men. But he never controverted 
their opinions or argued agaix^ their apologists, either because 
he had no knowledge of them, or, which we think nearer the 
truth, because he wbhed to appear to hold in contempt those, 
who by their observance of new rites of reFigion were the ob^ 
jects of his scorn. For we deem it scarcely credible, that Lu- 
cian, unequaUed, as he was, by any man of his age, in hb know- 
ledge of public and private affairs, and in his intimate acquaint- 
ance both by travel and correspondence with persons of every 
rank and place, should have been altogether ignorant of the 
writings of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and even of Tatian, his 
own countryman ; (for Tatian was by birth a Syrian). 

But while in these places Lucian has reviled the Christians 
in express terms, he appears to iiave aimed at them indirect 
censure everywhere in his books on the true art of history. 
We think, however, that he has actually done this only in a 
few cases : for having changed our opinion, we do not at pres- 
ent assent to those views, which Krebs has maintained on this 

subject, although Eichstaedt has recently sanctioned them by 

.. -I ■■ I- i.ii ■■ I .... II .11 I ..1 1 1 .1 II III ( ■ I II I I ■■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ 

* The reader will find these remarks in the lx>ok referred to, on 
the death of Peregrinus, c 11—13. p. 233—338. torn. III. 

Vol. XL No. 29. 28 



818 ABunoTu to Chrkttanity. [Jah. 

bis approbation.* All those remarks, which are supposed to 
refer either to the prophet Jonah living three days in the whale's 
belly, or to Christ walking upon the sea, or to the contest of the 
archangel Michael with Satan, described in the Apocalypse, 
are so introduced, that they may have been writtea either for 
the purpose of jest, or of ridiculing the Greeks for their credulity 
and superstition, even by a man, who had not the least knowl- 
edge of the Christians. The story of the mariners, which Lo- 
cian is so minute in relating, who having sailed a thousand and 
five hundred stadia, come to certain islands and cities, situated 
in the belly of a huge animal, where they find herbs and crea« 
tures of every sort, and whence after the expiration of a year 
and six months they emerge and again traverse the deep, is 
entirely dissimilar to the account, which the sacred Scriptures 
give concerning the prophet Jonah.f In like manner hb nana- 
tive in regard to the battle of Endymion and the Selenitae, m- 
habitants of the moon, with Phaethon and Helios, inhabitants 
of the sun, is understood surely, with great latitude of construe* 
tion, in being supposed to refer to the battle of Michael and 
Satan. For had Lucian designed to allude to thiis battle, re- 
lated in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse, he should have 
wrought into his description such circumstances, as would be 
pertinent to that character of an accuser, which Satan bears, 
and also to that blood of the Lamb, by which he is overcome. 
Besides the battle of Endymion and rhaethon terminates in a 
peace favorable to both : whereas that of Michael and Satan 
ends in the victory of Michael who hurls his adversary firom the 
heavens.! These therefore and other passages are thought to 
have but a forced application to the records of sacred history. 
At the same time there are some things in the writings of Lu- 

* See Krebt in regard to the malioiqus designs of Luoian to nipike 
(he Christian religion appear weak and ridiculous, in Diss, in ejus d. 
opusc. acad. et scholast. p. 308 sqq. A\bo Eichstaedt in Diss, publish- 
ed at Jena 1820, on the question, whether Lucian wished hy what he 
wrote to aid the Christian cause. In our work, with the title of Hlt- 
torrae Apologetices Lips. 1805, we adopted the opinion of Krebs, 
But at preseht we are inclined to a different view in respect to very 
many of the passages adduced by this learned man. 

f The story of the ship entering the mouth of a whale is given JD 
his work de vera Historia L. I. c. 30—40. p. 94 — 101. 

X The account of the battle between Endymion and Phaethon may 
be read 1. 1, c. 10—21. p. 77—87. 



1896.] JUuiUHu to (Jkriitimit}/. 219 

cwo, which evea in oar view admit of this reference. We con- 
sider it necessary to understand thus what he says concerning a 
city^ situated upon the islands of the blessed, which is all gold 
and surrounded with walls of emerald.* Since the idea of such 
a city upon these blands never occurs in any of the Greek 
writei3, it would seem not improbable that Lucian had his 
thoughts on the heavenly Jerusalem, of whose descent upon the 
earth the Chiliasts were in constant expectation, and which the 
author of the Apocalypse represents as effulgent with the 
splendor of the most costly gems. In like manner we should 
refer to the same origin, we think, what he says in regard to 
fountains full of honey and rivers of milk, as well as what be 
observes respecting reregrinus, that by his death he left Ins 
foUowers orpnansf— in which case he seems to have designed 
to express himself in imitation of our Lord in John, 14: 18> 

But ail these instances, as Eichstaedt has justly remarked, 
are rather conjectural than certain. The views of learned men 
will always differ in regard to the interpretation <^ passages of 
this nature. After what has been adduced, however, from his 
book on the death of Peregrinus, there can be no doubt, that 
Ludan entertained opinions, which did great injustice to the . 
Chrisuans ; and no one, we are sure, can read the evidence of 
this and still allow himself to think, that he favored them and 
wbhed to aid their cause.:^ The idea is entirely unsupported ; 
It is almost absurd. Lucian ridiculed indeed the gods of the 
Greeks, and denounced the rites of their religion ; but be did 
this, that he ought expose to contempt that, which both in his 
view and in fact deserved such exposure ; and not by imy means 
that he might prepare the way for the triumpt) of the Christians, 
to whom he rendered, if any, an unintentional assistance. He 
could scoff at one form of religion as readily as another ; and 
in truth he made it as much hb aim to efiace from the minds of 
men every vestige of piety, as to put an end to the reign of su- 
perstition. 

* L I. L. II. c. II. p. IlL 

t De morte Peregrin c. 6. p. 330. 

t In the dinertation of Eichtiatdi against Kethur in regard to the 
intentions of Locian, to which we have already referred, there are 
■DOM IngeniooB remarks on the topic in question, which deserve to 
be read. 



990 Allusions to GirisHamiy* [Jan. 

If Lucian considered h sufficient to censure and revile the 
Christians, Celsus, his contemportiry, (for it is highly probable, 
that the Celsus, refuted by Origen, is the individual, to whom 
Lucian dedicated his Pseudomantis), ^ felt it expedient to take 
other ground. He lived towards the end of the age of the An- 
tonines, and came forward against the supporters of Christianity, 
as an assailant of their opinions, as a defender of the public re- 
ligion against the ruin, with which he saw that they were 
threatening it, and as the author of charges, which represented 
them as factious, insurrectionary and dangerous to the State. 
His work, entitled, Xoyog q)^kaX1J&fig, is extant but in part. 
From the remains of it, however, not inconsiderable, which 
Origen has preserved with the very words of the author in his 
eight books, which he wrote in reply to Celsus, it is evident, 
that he was no stranger to the circumstances of the Christians, 
that he employed in his attacks upon them both raillery 
and argument, and in short that he spared nothing, which would 
serve either to invalidate their opinions, or expose them to 
hatred. In this book Celsus anticipated the part of the Neo- 
Platonista, who in subsequent times were distinguished for their 
support of the public religion, and their opposition to the Chris- 
tians ; although he himself, in our opinion, was not a Flatonist, 
but an Epicurean, and was led to assume the position, which he 
took, not from any impulse of piety, but rather from a regard to 
the consistency of his own character. Havmg displayed so 
much zeal against new and foreign rites (for the chief ground 
on which he rested his censure of the Christians, was that they 
embraced pagfiagov doyfia and vOfiO'&iaiav Kaivrfp), he felt that 
it became him to give his support to that, which had the sanc- 
tion of custom and the authority of law. 

Celsus completes the list of those writers, who took notice of 
the Christians from the time of Domitian to the conclusion of 
the age of the Antonines. We have now before us the facts, 
which the case involves. It remains that we explain why it is, 
that the early history of the church received so little attention 
from Greek and Roman authors. 

* The ground of this assumption is this ; Ludan in the piece, which 
is entitled Pseudomaotis, c 21. p. 229. Tom. II., mentions some books 
on magic written by the Celsus, to whom this same piece is dedicated 
and Origtn contra Cels. L. 1. p. 53. ed. Spenc. says, that it is very 
probable, that the Celsus, refuted by himself, is the same person, to 
whom the books on magic are attributed. 



1888.] AUiuiam to Chrittianiiy. 821 

The references, which these authors make to this subject, 
until A. D. 180, the end of the age of the Antonines, are truly 
inconsiderable, whether we have respect to their number or 
their importance. For most of them, as the result of the fore- 
going examination shows, were entirely silent in regard to the 
Christians, some of them mentioned them briefly and censured 
them in few words, (even Lucian was&r from speaking of them 
with any thing like minuteness), and at length in the age of the 
Antonines, Crescens, Fronto and Celsus took up the pen against 
them. The question therefore is very properly asked, why the 
Greek and Roman writers alluded to the Christians thus rarely ? 
and it is a question surely, which deserves to be carefiiUy in* 
vestigated. 

In the prosecution of this inquiry, it is important to distinguish 
properly the different periods, which the limits of our survey em- 
brace. In the age of the Antonines, the Christians had obtained 
notoriety ; but in the reigns of Domitian, Trajan, and Hadrian, we 
suppose, that they were so situated, as to be altogether unknown 
to multitudes, or known to them only by name. Even down 
to the time of Trajan they were considered as a mere sect or 
fiunily of the Jews, and were then, for the most part, safe, as 
TertuUian says, * under the shadow of the toleration, which was 
extended to the Jewish religion. Nor is there any thing singu- 
lar in this, since at this period most of the Christians were con- 
verts from the Jews, and their churches, whether we consider 
the form of their government or the mode of their worship, 
diSdred but little from the synagogues. Like the Jews, the 
Christians were accustomed to meet on the Sabbath to offer 
prayers, read the Scriptures and sing praises ; as the Jews had 
their chief rulers of the synagogue and then: elders, so the Chris- 
tians had their presbyters and bishops, who presided over their 
afiairs ;. and the latter, as well as the former, abhorred the gods 
of the heathen, refused to accept public offices and to perform 
military service, and shunned theatres, shows and feasts* Not 
a few Syrians indeed, bom at Antioch, Egyptians bom at Al- 
exandria, Greeks, natives of Corinth and Athens, Romans, re^- 
dents at Rome, espoused the Christian cause, and at length by 
degrees oi iit tti^ an^ofivatiag were so increased, that in many 
places they either equalled or exceeded the number rcoy in ttjQ 
ncpltOfAfjg. But the Christians, notwithstanding this accession, 

* In Apologetico c. 21. p. 53. ed. Semkri, 



32S AUusiont to CkriitianiUy^ [Jan 4 

were still regarded as a part of tbe Jewish commuiiity. For 
it was but the recurrence of what often took place, that those 
who were by birth either Egyptians or Grecians or Romans, 
became proselytes to Judabm and lived in the observance of its 
rites. Nor did it make any difference, that the Jews and Chris- 
tians were at variance with each other. Those who ascertained 
any thing in regard to these dissensions, were very naturally led 
to confound them with the domestic feuds and animosities of 
the various parties, into which the Jews were divided. This 
was the opinion of those Roman magistrates, who replied to 
the Jews, when they charged the apostle Paul with breaking 
the law, that these were Cvttjfiata ntg^ Xoyov, km ovogAnttwf hm 
pofiov, or Ctjtiifittva mg^ ttjg Uwg duaidatfioviag, * 

Besides, there were not many among the Christians of that 
time, either conspicuous for rank and birth, or embent for lite- 
rary fiune, towards whom the eyes of all would be attracted. 
Those certainly err, who suppose, that they were gathered fixKD 
the very lowest dregs of the people. The authority of Caecil- 
ius, who in the Octavius of Mbucius Felix acts the part of an 
accuser of tbe Christians, and who reproaches them with pre- 
cisely such an origm, has an undue mnuence, when made the 
basis of such an opinion. It cannot be doubted, that fiom the 
very first not a few persons of no mean consideration, in regard 
both to property and mental culture, enrolled themselves on the 
side of Chnst. For what could Paul and Peter have meant by 
admonishing the women, who were believers, that they should 
not make their adorning consist of necklaces, pearls, gold and 
silver, and costly raiment,t unless there were those in the 
churphes, who were able to procure for themselves expensive 
apparel ? And with what consistency too could Lucian remark, 
as he does in the passage already cited, that any impostor who 
should join the Christians, might easily become rich among 
them, had they been a troop of paupers and mendicants ? Nor 
were the Christians all ignorant and illiterate men ; they always 
had those in their ranks, who could not only speak, but write in 
explanation and defence of their principles ; and who in their 
public assemblies could discourse upon the subjects of religion 
and comment on the Scriptures, although it might not be indeed 
m the style of orators, who had been taught the art of rhetoric. 

• See Aptor. 18: 31. 33: 39. 35: 19. 
1 1 Tim. S: 9. 1 Pet 3: 8. 



1888.] Alhtiumi to CkrUiimiiif. &S8 

Sometimes also an individual of noble Urth and station appeals 
to have joined their number. It is highly probable, that Flavius 
Clemens, a consul, cousb of the emperor Domitian, and his 
wife, Domitilla, became converts to Christianity. As to the 
statement indeed of Dio Cassius, that they had fallen into such 
error, as to embrace ta li&tj imp 'loviaiwv, it may be under* 
stood alike of the Christian and the Jewish religion. The ac- 
cusation however rrii d^eotfitog, which they are said to have 
incurred, inclines us to suppose, that the former was meant 
rather than the latter; since this charge was often alleged 
against the Christians but could not easily apply to' the Jews.^ 
Still it must certainly be allowed, that the Christians were, for 
the most part, from the lower walks of life, and but little ac- 
quainted with Grecian and Rotnan letters. For had it been 
otherwise, Caecilius, in the Octavius of Minucius Felix, could 
neither have said, with all the liberty of exaggerati(»i, which 
may be claimed for him as an accuser, that they were collected 
from the lowest dregSy nor have addressed to them the language 
'T^iehold ; both the greater and better part of yoii, as you your- 
sehes say, are in want, suffer cold, cowtempt and Atm^er.f 
And in like manner Celsus could have had no pretence for say- 
ing, that those who displayed such zeal to proselyte children 
and ignorant women, iQ&ovgyovg iipM, sea* anvtorofiov^, na$ 
n¥afu6, anaidsvtovQ mw a/goi Hotutdvg (that they were wool- 
dressers, and leather-cutters and fullers, uneducated and^rustic 
men).^ But if there was room even in the age of the Anto- 
nines for the application of such language to the Christians, as 
Caecilius and Celsus used in reference to them, it is to be still 
less expected, that their earlier annals were adorned with the 
names either of the learned or the noble. We may imagine 
some resemblance in this respect between the primitive churches 
and the modem societies of the Mennonites and Quakers* 
These latter consisted chiefly of mechanics, artists, and mer- 
chants, men of principle and respectability indeed, possessed al-^ 
so of some information and property, yet in few instances emi- 
nent either for learning or birth or opulence. The first churches^ 
it should be remembered, were small and made up of those^ 
who not only lived in the shades of private life, but, from thehr 



• Dio Cas$ws L. LXVII. o. 14. p. 111% ed. Hamb. 

t c a and c 13. 

t See Origisus eontra Celsttms L. III. p. 144. ed. Spenc 



S94 AOuiiam to Christiaiuiy. [Jak. 

constant fear of danger, had every motive to evade rather than 
court the public observation. (On this account they are called 
by Caecilius a light-fleeing, skulking, speechless tribe.)* They 
were established too, not in towns and villages where all things 
of a private nature become public, but in large and populous 
cities, where the eyes of men notice only that, which b, as it 
were, thrust upon their attention. It is easy to conceive, that 
the Christians, under such circumstances, may have been utter- 
ly unknown to multitudes of their contemporaries. We have 
no doubt that there are many in London at this day, who know 
nothing in regard to the Quakers or the Baptists ; and we have 
ascertained it for a fact, that very many of our own citizens are 
ignorant, that there is a small community at Leipsic. who w<»r- 
ship in the manner of the Bohemian brethren. In the same 
way we suppose that great numbers of the Antiochians, Alex- 
andrians, Romans, Athenians, Thessalonians, had at that time 
either no knowledge of the Christians, or only such as acquaint- 
ed them with their name as Galilaeans, and dieir Jewish origin. 
Those things, which neither dazzle the eyes of men by their 
splendor, nor awaken in their minds admiration or abhorrence, 
nor allure them by the hope of gain and the prospect of plea- 
sure, often remain concealed for a long time from the general 
view. 

But in the age of the Antonines the Christians were no 
longer unknown. They ceased, from the time of Trajan, to be 
confounded with the Jews, and occupied henceforth a separate 
and conspicuous station in the eyes of the world. All those, 
who were accustomed to pay any attention to public affiurs, 
could not hilt know, that the churches differed entirely from 
the synagogues, that the Christians observed rites of religion 
peculiar to themselves^ that they abhorred the gods, worshipped 
by the heathen, xhat they were bound to each other by stronger 
ties, than were those of other sects, that they had been re- 
peatedly punished by the magistrates, and treated with indignity 
and violence by the multitude in revenge for the contempt, 
which they saw cast upon the objects of their worship. At 
the same time, most of those, who were aware of these and 
similar facts respecting the Christians, imagined that thev saw 
nothing in them very remarkable ; and, under this belief, they 
of course had no sufficient motive either for investigating their 



« See Mmum Fdkit Ootaviu% aa 



1638.] jtOunons to ChrisHmity. &95 

history or transmitting any information on the subject. So far 
certainly as regards tlie novelty of the christian religion, it is 
not strange, that it did not arrest and fix the attention of men. 
At this very period, in all the large and populous cities, par- 
ticularly at Rome and Alexandria, not only foreign rites of 
worship, brought from all parts of the earth, Hke those in honor 
of Isis and Mithra, were from time to time making their appear- 
ance, but frequently new ceremonies (xa$¥M Kkstat) like those 
of the Alexander, whom Lucian assailed under the name of 
Pseudomantis, were instituted. Nor did it appear wonder- 
fiil, that the Christians worshipped the Deity without temples, 
altars and images. For the Jews, dispersed throughout the 
Roman world, had been accustomed everywhere to offer their 
devotions in a similar manner. But little importance again was 
attached to the invectives, with which the Christians denounc- 
ed the gods of the heathen. In this they were not singular : 
for many of the philosophers also despised and ridiculed the gods. 
Nor was it deemed a matter, which deserved to interest specially 
the public mind, that the Christians suffered at one time from 
civil persecution, and at another from the violence of the mul- 
titude. The State was thrown into no very serious commotion 
either by the tumults of the people, demanding the sacrifice of 
their victims, or by the decisions of the judges, dooming them 
to death. Those too, who perished in this way, were obscure 
men, whose fate was not deemed of sufficient consequence to 
merit a place in history. 

Add to this, that many of the Greeks and Romans held the 
Christians in contempt as the observers of Jewish rites, and also 
detested them, both on account of the crimes, which were laid 
to their charge, and the insubordbate, restless spirit, which was 
supposed to animate them. It is well known, that the Greeks 
and Romans regarded the Jews as a barbarous, superstitious, and 
illiterate people, and for this reason felt no interest in their oon^ 
cems. in this way many were led to look upon the Christian 
also in the same light ; who, as they derived their reKgion (torn 
the Jews, worshipped Jesus Christ, who was bom among the 
Jews, acknowledged the prophets of the Jews as the messen^ 
gers of God, and regulated their ohurobes after the pattern of 
file synagogue, were supposed to practise Jewish rites and imi^ 
tate the manners of the Jews. TV> contempt were fi^quently 
added hatred and indignation. Those, who cherished such feeK 
ings towards tbero, did in fact but their duty, if they considered 

Vol. XI. No. 29, 99 



236 AUunons to Chri$tianUy. [Jan. 

them really guilty of celebrating feasts, at which they com- 
mitted murder and incest. That the suspicion of such guilt was 
deeply fixed in the minds of many, may be learned from the 
effi>rts of the Apologists, who left no stone unturned in their anx- 
iety to clear themselves from these accusations, (^Svicuut 
dunva and Oi dinodnoi fitJ^ug, as they are called by the Greeks). 
But those, who placed no confidence in uncertain rumor, or 
who knew, that these imputations were false, were still dis* 
pleased, that men so obscure and illiterate should afiect to be 
wise above their condition, and refuse to conform to what the 
laws prescribed. This was natural. For it is common for men 
in the higher walks of life to censure those things, which are 
contrary to the established laws and usages, although, while they 
deny the right to others, they themselves assert the liberty of 
disregarding and renouncing them, as they please. Hence many, 
who discovered but little zeal tliemselves in the worsiiip of the 
gods, condemned the Christians for their contempt of the public 
services of religion, and pronounced it mere obstinacy, that they 
refused to bum incense to the gods, and swear by the divinity 
of the emperor. 

Such we consider to be the explanation of the fact that roost 
of the Greek and Roman writers, even in the age of the An- 
tonines, were either entirely silent in respect to the Christians, 
or confined their notice of them to brief and cursory allu^ns. 
They appeared to observe nothing in them, which was partic- 
ularly worthy eitlier of their own attention, or the information 
of posterity ; and, as they either despised them, as a branch of 
the Jews, or hated them for the infamous crimes, of whbh they 
were suspected, and for their seditious spirit, it was impossible, 
that they should have been otherwise than hostile to their cause. 

But all the Greeks and Romans, who were distinguished for 
their attention to letters, did not entertain such an opinbn of 
the Christians, or rest satisfied with so superficial a knowledge 
of their affaii*s. The Apologies, written by Justin, Melito, 
Athenagoras, and others, were composed with too much ability 
and dispersed by the Christians with too much zeal, to allow us 
to suppose, that they were but little read. Those, therefore, 
who had seen these defences, or had met with the Christians 
in the intercourse of life, could not have fiuled to know, that 
they were not only guiltless of the crimes, with which thOT 
were charged, but taught doctrines and rules of omduct, which 
accorded with the sentiments of the moat odebrated phtioaopbers. 



1838.] Alhuumt to Chriitianiiy. S2T 

It may perhaps be further inquired then, why the Christians 
found no eulogists among the philosophers, who were superior 
to the multitude in wisdom, and entertamed more correct views 
upon religious subjects. 

The fact now here is, that many of those, who rejected in- 
deed the public religion as mere superstition, but still adhered 
to its forms as an expression of their reverence for the Deity, 
and as an aid to the development of their moral nature, became 
not merely eulogists of the Christians, but in very deed Chris- 
tians themselves. Of this number were Quadratus, Aristides, 
Melito, Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Minucius Fe- 
lix, and many others, who, natives either of Syria, or Greece, or 
Egypt, or Africa, adopted the christian faith, transferred to the 
church their various accomplishments in Grecian and Roman 
science, and, especially in the age of the Antonines, advocated 
the cause of the Christians. AH these men, averse indeed to 
the public belief, yet possessing minds ever wakeful on religious 
subjects, joined the christian church, because it presented to 
them views of truth, to which their hearts responded, because 
it spread before them a sacred history, which bore, as it were, 
the marks of a witness and messenger of the Deity, and pre- 
scribed to its members, united in the bonds of a common faith 
and mutual love, the duties, which are best suited to the culti- 
vation of a pious spirit. No inconsiderable number, therefore, 
who had been enabled by the aid of Grecian philosophy to rise 
to more worthy conceptions of religion than those of the multi- 
tude, cordially approved and embraced the doctrines of Chris- 
tianity. But those philosophers, who became Christians, are 
to be classed, not among the Greeks and Romans, who are the 
subjects of our present inquiry, but among the Christian wri- 
ters, whom it would be out of place here to notice. 

Others however of this class, and those by far the majority, 
took a diflferent view ; they condemned the Christian rites and 
withheld from them every expression of their sympathy and 
favor. Some of them did this from their regard to the authority 
of law and custom which weighed with them far more than the 
acknowledged defects of the public religion ; and others again, 
from the contempt, in which they held every thing sacred. 

Of this number were the Stoics and Platonists, who preceded 
the Neo-l^latonists so called xor* i^oxv^* The Platonists of 
these times, as Plutarch, Alcinous, Apuleius, and the Stoics, as 
Arrian and Marcus Antoninus, having derived from philosophy 



228 AUuiiant to Christianiiy. [Jah. 

many correct notions of religious truth, perceived, that the 
mythic fictions contained much that was absurd and equally 
unworthy of gods and men, favored the idea, that the worship 
of the Deity depended on the state of the mind, rather than on 
the performance of external services, and distinguished very 
justly between «t/a«/7««a and d€iOida$fiov$a. In the works of 
jPlutarch especially there occur many noble sentiments on re- 
ligious subjects, showing that he and those like him had advan- 
ced beyond the multitude in their conceptions of truth, and 
taught not a few principles very similar to those of the christian 
religion. But most ot these philosophers were unwilling, that 
the established forms of worship should be abandoned, and others 
substituted for them. They revered them, because they were 
supported by law and custom ; and feared, lest if their national 
and ancient institutions should give place to those of foreign and 
recent origin, it might derange the whole order and frame of 
society. For this reason they either considered it the part of a 
wise man to follow philosophy as his guide in private life, but 
in public life to conform to the laws and worship in the ancient 
manner, or to endeavor, by divesting the received mythology of 
its literal sense, and understanding it to teach only physical and 
moral truths, or by distinguishing between daemons and gods 
and referring to the former every thing of an unworthy nature, 
to improve the public religion and harmonize it with the doc- 
trines of philosophy. Those now, who thought and did thus, 
could not have patronized the cause of the Christians, nor have 
appeared as the eulogists of those, who were despising the 
public rites, who were censuring, and ridiculing them, and pre- 
paring the way for their ruin. Many things indeed taught by 
the Christians they approved as perfectly agreeable to right 
reason. But they were of the opinion, that a knowledge of di- 
vine and human subjects was to be sought, not from the Chris- 
tians, but from the philosophers of their own country, far ex- 
celling in their estimation both in acuteness and eloquence the 
prophets of the Jews and the apostles, founders of the christian 
church. Thus the cause of the Christians was not favored even 
by those philosophers, who approached very nearly to them in 
•the sentiments which they entertained. 

But those, by whom sacred rites of every description were 
tdespised, and all religion accounted as superstition, had still oth- 
>er reasons either for neglecting or censuring the followers of 
Christ. To this class belonged the Epicureans, and Cynics ; 



1838.] AButiom to ChriiHmUjf^ S99 

which is learned not (Hily fiom Plutarch, who frequently char- 
acterises the Epicureans as d^iovg^ and censures severely* their 
yiXwtag and x^^^^MOv, but also from the example of Lucian, 
who embraced the Epicurean philosophy. For Lucian not on- 
ly ridiculed the heathen mythology, exhibited the Grecian gods 
in a ridiculous light and held up to contempt the public ceremo- 
nies, but also especially in those treatises, of which one is entitled 
Zevg iieyx^fififog, the other Zsvg Tgayft^doQf argued against reli- 
gion itself, and endeavored to subvert the doctrine of a Divine 
Being, who is interested in the concerns of men.f Philoso- 
phers now, discarding thus the idea of a Divine power, could 
not but have extended that contempt which they felt for all re- 
ligion, to the christian religion also, and have turned with ab- 
horrence from those, whom they considered either as the authors 
or supporters of a new superstition. Nor did those attacks, 
which were made by the Christians upon the prevalent errors, 
have any special tendency to conciliate their favor. They sup- 
posed, that they themselves, following in the steps of Eveme* 
rus and other philosophers of past times, had fully discovered 
and proved the vanity, senselessness and absurdity of the mythic 
system. 

It is therefore sufficiently accounted for, that the Christians 
even at that time, when they had now become generally known, 
found, not a few followers indeed, but no eulogists uid advo* 
cates amcmg the philosophers. 

But those of these philosophers, who felt such a disFike to 
the Christians, because they were unwilling, that the public 
rites, established by law and custom, should be disturbed and 
abolished, appear to have had appropriate reasons, not so much 
for neglecting to speak of their adG&irs, as for arraigning the cor-- 
rectness of their opinions. For the Christians surely were pre* 

Jaring the way for the ruin of those rites : their poets, known 
y the name of Sibyllists, were, in imitation of the author of the 
Apocalypse, predicting it ; and their apologists, seeking the 
same result in every possible way, made no secret of the fact, 
that they too desired it, that they prayed and labored, that aU 
would abandon the temples and altars of idols and turn to the 
true God. It may therefore be very properly asked, why no 
one, except Cebus, (for Crescens and Fronto appear to have 

* See bis book de Oraciiloruro Delectu, c. 19. 

t See perttealarly bis Zeus Tragoedus^ o. 43—49. p. 694-^096. 
Tem. II. ed. RtUz. 



880 Attunant to Ckritiiamiif. [Jait. 

merely personated the character of assailants and accusers), en- 
deavored to convict the Christians of error, and defend the pub- 
lic religion against them. Those, who might have done this, 
we answer, appear to have neglected it, because thev supposed, 
that there was but little to be feared from the Christians. For- 
eign religious rites had been often introduced, and the Jewish 
ceremonies had already been a long time practised without any 
danger to the public religion. The Christians, few in number, 
suspected by the magistrates, odious to the multitude, and not 
protected indeed by public law from the fear of punishment, 
seemed not to be the persons, who were to overturn those insti- 
tutions, which had been received from their fathers, which were 
guarded by the authority of the State, which had become sa- 
cred through the veneration of ages. No one could at that time 
have easily predicted, that domestic usages were soon to give 
place to foreign ; ancient, to modem ; Greek and Roman, to 
those, which had sprung from Judea, and that the opinions of 
mtnkind, the laws of the empire, and the religion of the whole 
Roman world, were about to be changed by the efforts of the 
Christians. The christian church, in all its early progress, was 
weak ; and even in the age of the Antonines was so destitute 
of the influence, arising either from numbers or the support of 
literary men, that it could have presented no very threatening 
aspect towards the rites of paganism, with whatever earnestness 
it might have sought their overthrow. There seemed to be no 
occasion for the pen in opposing those, who were falling by the 
sword. There were a few indeed of such sagacity, that, like 
Celsus, they saw, that the elements of a mighty revolution were 
concealed in the principles of the Christians ; but for the most 
part they were deceived by the external appearance of things, 
and supposed that their few and feeble churches would soon be 
exterminated. It was a mistake, into which men are liable to 
fidl, who estimate by number and weight the power of what de- 
pends upon human thought and volition. 

Still further ; those, who were unwilling that the public rites 
should be disturbed and abolished, are not to be considered as 
having been so attached to them, that they would not sufier 
any thing to be said in disparagement of them. Neither against 
Oenomaus, who in the time of Hadrian assailed the art of divi- 
nation,* nor against Lucian, who in the age of the Antonines 

* His book, of which firaguients by no means iQconsiderable have 
been preserved by Eusebiiis in his Praeparatio Evangelical L. V. eap. 



1838.] AUutiani to ChrisUanky. 831 

ridiculed and exposed the gods, did any come forward to de- 
fend the religion of their fathers. Besides, it was no easy mat- 
ter to restore the Grecian theology, neglected as it had long 
been, and reconcile with philosophy a religion, which was found- 
ed upon the senses and in many respects directly at variance 
with correct reason. It cannot therefore appear singular, that 
in the age of the Antonines no one, except Celsus, supported 
the cause of the public religion by attacking the opinions of the 
Christians. For although the Platonists were every where nu- 
merous, yet it was not until the third century that the Neo- 
Platonic philosophy, which fiimished the defenders of the na- 
tional faith with the most convenient weapons, began at length 
to prevail. 

The examination, into which we have thus gone, furnishes a 
satisfactory answer, we think, to the question, which we propo- 
sed to consider. It has been our design to treat it in such a 
way, that it might be seen, that it is no discredit to Christianity, 
that it so rarely attracted the attention of Greek and Roman 
writers. Unless we are deceived, we tiave not failed to accom- 
plish our purpose. For we think, that it is abundantly evident 
irom what has been said, that the authors, of whom we have 
spoken, had either absolutely no reasons for mentioning the 
Christians, or such as would lead them to do it but very seldom. 

But the fewer the facts, which we learn from these authors, 
in reference to the christian cause, the more highly should we 
prize the writings of the apostles, apostolic &thers, and apolo- 
gists, of which, fortunately we have such ample remains. By 
the perusal and study of these records of early Christianity, we 
may fully acquaint ourselves with the progress and arguments 
of the primitive believers. So far from its being adverse to the 
truth, nothing, on the contrary, contributes so much to excite 
the mind to its contemplation, as familiarity with the history of 
the ancient church. 

18 aqq. L. VI. c. 6 sqq., was entitled, ipoffa yotiiwf, detection of im- 
postors. Cf. Fabncii Bibl. Graec. Vol. III. p. 5^ sq. ed. HarUi. 



Old and New TeitamefUs* [Jait. 



ARTICLE XI.. 
CoNirccTioN or the Old and New Tbbtakkiitb. 

Trusl«t«4 from Um G«nD«n of ProfMsor TwatUn of Berlin. By B. & Edwtrda, Pvofi 

of Hebrew, Theological Bemioarj, Andover. 

hUroductory Remarks^ by the Translator. 

[Professor Twesten^ now in the chair of theolo^iy recently 
filled by Schleiermacher in the university of Berlin, is one of the 
most distinguished evangelical theologians of Germany, though 
his writings are not very numerous. He was horn at Gliickstadt 
on the 11th of April, 1789. His earliest education was ao- 

auired at the Latin school of his native place ; he then pursued 
be study of philology and theology at the university of Kiel, 
in Denmark, from which he received, in 1812, the honorary 
degree of doctor in philosophy. He then went to Berlin, where 
he came into particular connection with Schleiermacher from 
whose theological turn of mind, he received an important influ- 
ence. In the same year he became a teacher of a gymnasium 
in Berlin, and, in 1813, inspector in a similar institution. In 
1814, he left Berlin, and became professor extraordinarius of 
philosophy and theology at Kiel, in 1819, he became profes- 
sor ordinarius of theology in the same university. In 1826, 
the university of Bonn gave him the degree of doctor in theology. 
In the same year, he received the order of knighthood, and in 
1827, he was chosen a member of the philosophical society of 
Copenhagen. He declined several invitations to professorships 
firom various universities, among which were Bonn and Gottin- 

fen. In 1836, on the decease of Schleiermacher, he removed to 
terlin. His not very numerous publications are confined to 
philology, theology, and philosophy. His only publication in 
the first named branch is a critical commentary on Hesiod's 
Works and Days, Kiel, 1815. In 1818, he published a book 
on Symbolik, and in 1819, in conjunction with the pastor 
Harms of Kiel, a work on the Augsburg Confession, in Ger- 
man and Latin. He showed himself to be a clear and profound 
thinker by his Logic, printed at Sleswig in 1825. In 185t6, he 
published an account of the Evangelical Lutheran Theological 
Seminary at Gettysburg, Pa. From 1815 to 1819, he was 



1838.] Old and New Te$tamenU. $i38 

an active contributiMr to a periodical at Kiel Q* Eieler Blatter). 
In addition to his literary labors and his services as an academi*- 
cal teacher, he was quite efficient as a member of society at 
Kiel, particularly in the concerns of the poor, in which he 
showed an uncommon practical talent. 

His principal publication in theology, unquestionably, is his 
Lectures on Dogmatic, (Vorlesungen iiber die Dogmatik), pub- 
lished at Hamburg in 1826. Only one volume has yet ap* 
peared. The third edition of this volume was published in 
1834, b the prefiice to which we have the promise of an early 
appearance of the first part of the second volume. The con- 
tents of the first volume are, I. A general Introduction, embrace 
ing, the nature of religion, the connection of knowledge with 
religbn, the christian, the biblical and the Lutheran dogmatks, 
importance of the Lutheran dogmatic for theologians, closer 
view of its design, reference of the Lutheran creed to the Bible, 
relation between the Lutheran creed and those of other sects, 
relation of dogmatic to philosophy, and relation of dogmatic to 
the office of preaching in the church. II. An Historico-Criti- 
cal Introduction, including a survey of the progress of Chris- 
tianity to our times, Catholicism, Protestantism, review g[ the 
history of christian dogmatic — first period from Peter Lombard 
to Melancthon — second from Melancthon to Semler, — third 
from Semler to our times. Our author then proceeds to dis- 
cuss the principles and character of Protestantism. The first 
or critical pc^ion of the work treats of the sources of religious 
truth, under the subdivisions of — authority of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, connection of the Old and New Testaments, divinity <^ 
the Scriptures — revelation — inspiration, sacred canon, inter- 
prefoticm of the Scriptures, and the right use of reason. 

A translation of the second of these subdivisions, we now 
present to our readers. Translator.]' 

CoNNxcxioiv of tbb Old and Njbw Testaments. 

Under the name of the Holy Scriptures, which we expound 
as the rule of theology and as the source of our knowledge of 
it, we include not merely the writing^ composed by the apos- 
tles or their disciples, which refer to the establishment of the 
christian religion and church — the Scriptures of the New Tes- 
tament — but also the religious documents of the Jews — the 

Vol. XL No. 29. 30 



234 Old and New Testaments. [Jam. 

writings of the Old Testament or Covenant.* Hereb we fol- 
low the authority of Christ and the apostles, who -refer to the 
laws, precepts, ordinances, prophecies of the Old Testament, 
and derive then" arguments from thence.f They indicate its 
sentiments as those of God, or of the Holy Spirit ;| they ex- 
pressly establish its validity, or recommend its use.^ 

Still, there is another aspect in the reli^^ous constitution of 
the Old Testament, which is represented in the Ne^ as imper- 
feet, 2 Cor. 3: 6 seq., Heb. 8: 6 seq. ; as the first rudiments, 
Gah 4: 3, 9 ; as a mere preparatory or intermediate stage in re- 
ligious education, which as Christians we have passed over, 
Gah 3: 23, seq., and as something now antiquated and dissolved, 
Heb. 8: ]3. 2 Cor. 3: 11. Thus the writings in question can- 
not come to us in the shape of a rule of faith and practice like 
the New Testament, and hence we have the problem, otherwise 
worthy of attention, to determine how we are to regard these 
writings from the standpoint of christian theology ? 

Since it is no other than Christ himself by whom we are de- 
livered, not merely from sm, but from the darkness of our un- 
derstanding and heart, so must we look especially to him, in or- 
der to arrive at the light of true knowledge, and then to those 
persons who propagated and established what he commanded^- 
the apostles and their disciples, whose writings are contained in 
the New Testament. But the appearance of Christ does not 
stand isolated. He is the object and aim of a series of divine 
preparations, which point to the redemption of men. For, as 
the divine determination in respect to redemption and expiation 
must be regarded as eternal, so must its accomplishment have 
commenced along with the fall of man. Btit since every thing 
in the world follows the laws of its being which God would not 

* The Vulgate translates the Greek dui&i]jtti by the word tesinh 
mentum^ — as though the covenant estahlished by the Deity was 
intended to be in close connection with the Mosaic religious dispen- 
sation, from which the name and the idea were transferred to Chris- 
tianity when the old covenant ceased. Heb. 9:15. 12:34. Matt. 
26: 28, not without reference Iq Jer. 81: 31. Comp. Heb. 8: 8 seq. 

t Luke 10: 26. 16:29. 20:37,42. 24 : 35— 27, 44--47. John 5: 
39, 46. Acts 2: 25-^1. 28: 23,— also particularly in the epistles. 

t Matt. 15: 4—6. Acts 3: 18, 21. 4: 25. 1 Cor. 9: 8. Heb. 1: 1. 
3: 7. 10: 15. 1 Pet 1: 10—12, etc. 

§ Matt. 5: 17. Luke 16: 17. 2 Tim. 3: 14— la 2 Pet. 1: 19. 



1838.] Old and New Testamenti. SIS 

abolish, and since the weak eyes of men cannot look directly 
on the divine light in its full clearness, therefore, God has 
brought our race through certain stages of moral and religious 
development, till finally the Saviour himself appeared, and the 
mystery of redemption in which are hidden all the treasures of 
wisdom and knowledge, Col. 2: 3, was fully disck)sed. This 
determines our view of the conduct of the people from whom 
the salvation was to proceed, John 4: 22 ; of the counsels 
which imparted it ; of the arrangements which were entered into 
in regard to it, and of the writings in which these things are 
recorded. Thus the exhibitions of the divine will, fixxn which 
proceeded the determmation respecting redemption, are ever 
becoming clearer ; and the wisdom by which this salvation was 
accomplished, has made out in the writings of the Old and New 
Testaments one code of divine revelations, which display to us 
the preparations made by God for our redemption from begin- 
ning to end in connection. These preparations must be so ap- 
Erehended by us, that we can righdy understand the last and 
ighest of them, and so that the coming of Christ will operate 
on us in the same manner as it did on his first disciples. Since 
Christ found his people prepared for himiself by means of 
these holy writings, and since he had) in his own behalf, a great- 
er witness than that of Moses and the prophets— -even the tes- 
timony of God in the works which were appointed unto him to 
fulfil, John 5: 36, so the effects of the one are by no means to 
be separated from those of the others. As Christ was thence- 
forth preached unto the heathen, they at the same time receiv- 
ed the writbgs of the Old Testament ; to these, in addition he 
annexed the annunciation of the gospel, and even after this had 
gained an entrance, it would be difficult to reckon how many 
were won to the fi^th by means of the Old Testament, or by 
it were confirmed ; — ^in respect to which many explicit testi- 
monies both of modem and ancient tiroes have come to us. What 
is so^connected in contents and in effect, we may be allowed to 
discriminate, though not to divide. And since we are now to 
distinguish, and to inquire, how far the Old Testament can be 
regarded as the rule of faith and life fcnr Christians, we may 
consider the question under two divisions. 

1. The Old Testament contains divine revelations and pre- 
cepts. But God can reveal nothing which is not true : be can 
order nothing which is not holy and good and important for 
those who seek information in respect to truth and goodness* 



^6 Old and New Testaments. [Jah. 

Yet every thing is not revealed at the beginning. Till man is 
susceptible of higher manifestations, God must condescend to 
his infirmity ; the divine precepts must always be adapted to 
man's actual progress in education, until he is ripened for a 
more perfect state. Hence we must compare the earlier reve- 
lations and ordinances with the later — ^those of the Old Testa- 
ment with those of the New, and give attention to the points 
where the former are true and valid, where they are fully inter- 
preted and completed, where they are modified or abolished. 

In this, however, is rather contained a necessity to come to a 
reply to the proposed inquiry, than the answer itself. This 
can be stated precisely 

2. In a direct and obvious canon : The information and the 
precepts of the Old Testament are of authority for us so far as 
they point to one and the same religion contained in the Old 
Testament as is contained in the New ; they are not of validity 
so far as the religion of the Old Testament stands in opposition 
to that of the New. 

It is, indeed, in itself clear, that the christian life and con- 
sciousness, so far as it differs throughout from those of the pious 
Israelites, can draw no nourishment from that by which tlie lat- 
ter was ordered or exhibited ; but whatever sentiment or knowl- 
edge does not contribute to advance us in the faith, to which God 
has called us through Christ, cannot be regarded as intended by 
him for us. 

Now the religion of the Old and New Testament is one m 
i^ation to its monotheistic-dogmatic character, i. e. it is such a 
religion as elevates itself to the recognition of one true God, 
which lies at the foundation of the most important motives of 
our moral consciousness, and which, ripened into reflection, was 
sufficient to enable an individual, in the rejection of polytheism, 
to strive after the truth. We are also to bring into account the 
materials for the development of the religious consciousness 
which exist in monotheism. Also, as the code of precepts ex- 
pands itself, we are to consider the subjective principle of reli- 
gious earnestness and love of truth which are therein predomi- 
nant. This brings us to the perpetual validity of the instruc- 
tions of the Old Testament in respect to universal religious 
truths, the being of God, his will, works and attributes,— like- 
wise the universal rules and precepts which are set up for the 
direction of men as called to act or to suffer ; — ^instructions and 
precepts which are presupposed in the New Testament, although 



1838.] Old and New Testaments. 237 

there illustrated in a more complete manner, and brought forward 
in connection with the peculiar truths of Christianity and by them 
more exactly defined. 

Still, whatever may be these peculiarities, we are by no 
means to place the New Testament in opposition to the Old. 
The instructions and preparations of the latter are not merely 
introductory steps to Christianity, but contain Christianity itself 
in a certain sense, whatever may be their introductory charac- 
ter. As preliminary to what is not yet completely fulfilled, 
they are only that in which lies the germ, m which still, though 
the perfect acc(»nplishment is not yet reached, there is a capa- 
city in itself for further enlargement and development ; and 
whatever is essential to religion as it were completes itself in 
Christianity ; or, as we may further expand the idea, whatever 
belongs to the essential conditions of our salvation cannot be 
entirely wanting in a religion revealed by Crod. We see, m* 
deed, in nature how the inferior forms of animal organization 
point to the highest — to the type of the human form. Thus 
the Jewish religious community differed from the Christian in 
its mingling with political afi&irs, in its reference to the particu* 
lar relations and needs of this people, in its temple-service and 
priesthood. Still, here we find as it were a preformative influ- 
ence. The religious condition of the Jews conceals under a 
sensible covering the essential ideas of a christian theocracy, of 
which Christ is to be the head. In the religious life of a pious 
Israelite we recognize the elements of a spirit kindred to our- 
selves. In short, we see Christianity in a certain sense previ- 
ous to Christ.* But in order to place together in its appropri- 
ate light the real differences between the Old and New Testa- 
ments, we must anticipate a little what is in the sequel still fur- 
ther illustrated. 

Christianity requires, that along with the consciousness of our 
sinfulness, of our desert of punishment, as well as of our impo- 
tence, we should embrace Uhrist with a full faith, in order that 
we may be happy and blameless in his strength, through whom 
(jod has reconciled the world unto himself, and gives unto us a 
higher power through which we overcome sin. Now what is 
peculiar to this faith is, that it leads us to Christ. Therefore, 
that which summons us to believe is the recognition of the di- 
vine mercy in Christ — the gospel in its appropriate sense as 

* Or as MeUnetbon aays : ^ Ever since the creation of man, there 
has been t^ne and a perpetual church of Grod." 



238 Old and New TestamenU. [Jah. 

the means by which christian piety is produced in us,— and this 
is the substance of the New Testament. But faith cannot be 
of a superior kind without a higher development of the moral 
consciousness, which is indeed advanced by it, but which is pre- 
supposed to a certain degree. Now, can any one perceive the 
worth and greatness of the divine mercy, who is not deeply im- 
pressed with the fact that the anger and wrath of God are di- 
rected against us on account of our sins, who does not acknow- 
ledge with deep pain the greatness of his guilt ? How can one 
seek for higher aid, who has not learned by experience that 
he cannot help himself? Indeed, would not fiuth in redemp- 
tion, instead of giving consolation to the sorrowful and despair- 
ing, rather affi)rd aid to the thoughtless, and be a sort of offiet 
to man for his imperfections, while he is a stranger to the an- 
guish of a terrified c(»iscience and to true repentance ? Hence 
the gospel first exerts a saving influence when man has been 
brought through another school — the school of the law^ which 
places before him the strictness of the divine command and the 
severity of the divine justice. This for the Israelites was the 
school of the Mosaic, divine economy — the cardinal idea of the 
Old Testament. 

Still, God did not permit them to want revelations of mercy 
and grace, though in a great degree in the form and under the 
shadow of the law. Yet, this legal, sacred economy with its 
ceremonies and observances was arranged, not merely that 
through these external means, a revelation of Grod might be 
maintained and that purity preserved which be requires of his 
people, but also in order that the repentant nnner might be led 
to him to seek through him fireedom from guilt and pollution — 
the emblem of the greater sacrifice which was afterwards to be 
offered up for the sins of the world. It was under the shadow 
of the law ; — so that the posterity of Abraham, being held to- 
gether by a covenant embracing political and religious regula- 
tions, might not only retain a belief in the true God, while reli- 
gion degenerated and became disfigured by the general preva- 
lence of idolatry, but also that a prospect might be kept open 
towards the more perfect revelation, and that circumstances 
might be in readiness for the Redeemer to commence his benevo- 
lent labors. Under the protecting shadow of the law, the germ 
oi faith in the divine mercy was preserved and developed it- 
self—a faith, indeed, which from tne beginnmg had not refer- 
ence merely to the existing time, but extended into futurity. 



1888.] Old md Nek> Te$Ument$. 

and gndually passing over the limits of the law, and evennore 
fonning itself in such a manner so that in the end nothing was 
wanting to bring the true Israelite to Chrbt, but the joyful ivgti^ 
Kofitp^ John 1 : 42, 46. 

Promises had been made to the patriarchs besides those which 
received their accomplishment during the lives of their descen- 
dants. Moses had given the sustaining hope of higher revela- 
tions to such as might be anxiously waiting for them, when he 
referred die people to a prophet who should come after him.. 
The ideal image of a theocratic king which hovered before the 
vision of the holy songsters in their hymns, was of a loftier kind 
than could be realized in David or Solomon. Still less could 
circumstances, as they presented themselves in the following pe- 
riod of degeneracy and degradation, satisfy the earnest, longing 
mind of the pious and wise among the people. The harder 
the fortunes were which pressed upon them, the firmer and 
more trustingly they fastened on a condition of things delineated 
in prophecy, where God, having forgiven his people, would 
send them a Saviour, not merely from external oppression and 
poverty, but also from their religious and moral degeneracy ;-~ 
not simply to restore the ancient religion in its purity, but to 
establish a new covenant, his Spirit being poured out upon all, 
and all nations being led to know him. These prophetic delin- 
eations are such that we are led to the conclusion, that even 
when the prophets had in their minds persons or events of their 
own times, the Spirit which was in them, 1 Pet. I : 11, inteiv- 
ded and foretold something different. This longing hope for a 
fiitiu^ salvation, this dwelling on the image of a perfect theocra- 
cy, which found constantly new nourishment in the predictions 
of the Old Testament, and which could be shaken by no mis- 
take respecting the true time, (a mistake which has been no* 
ticed as not uncommon in respect to human nature,) while 
it did not remain free from impure mixtures, still maintained its- 
foundations in truth. This has always remained a pecuKar- 
tty m the Jewish people ; a trait in the highest degree r&> 
maricable, which, as it appears to us, must lead them sooner or 
later fit>m Moses on to Christ. 

We thus find announced in the Old Testament, not merely^ 
the divine mercy in general, but mercy in its reference to a 
future, more pemct revelatkxi of the same as it appeared in 
Christ ; and also the idea, which could not feel itself to be sat- 
isfied in the existing religious constitution, but which hoped for 



840 out and New Tettomenti. [Jah. 

a new coveoant, and for that higher development of the divine 
kingdom which followed in Christ, — intimated indeed in the 
precepts of the law, and which was unveiled more clearly in the 
promises of the prophets. So far we can say that the religion 
of the Old and New Testaments is the same in its true sub- 
stance ; not only in relation to its origin, (as we trace both back 
to divine revelations), but in reference to its object— ^the Mes- 
siah to whom the Old Testament points — ^when not directly yet 
mediately. They differ in relation to this point, only as the Old 
Testament pomts to one who is to come ; the New, makes known 
one who has already appeared, (though not without reference 
to another period still future, 1 Cor. 11: 26. The one, indeed, 
contained the principal lineaments of the idea, but the actual 
appearance (the humanity of Christ, the Mediator) could be 
anticipated only by significant images, whUe, on the contrary, 
the other places him before our eyes, as he dwelt among us full 
of grace and truth, John 1: 14. Hence the New Testament 
is truly the key <^ the Old, and must open for us, (as Christ 
did once for the apostles Luke 24: 27,) the idea of its true con- 
tents. Still, however, to the enlightened mind, which knows to 
what object all things cend, the Old Testament will ever be able, 
as in the case of Timothy, 2 Tim. 3: 15, to make wise unto sal- 
vation, not by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ* 

But in as far as the Old Testament is particularly an incul- 
cation of the law, so iar we may say, its religion is in contrast 
to that of the New Testament. As Christians we are not un- 
der xb/b law, but under grace, Rom. 6: 14, — yet not as if 
Christ did not demand what is essential in the law, Matt. 7: 12. 
22: 40. Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, 
Matt. 5: 17 ; yea, the righteousness of Christians must be more 
perfect than that of the Pharisees, Matt. 5: 20, who observed 
the law in the strictest manner. Acts 26: 5. But Christianity 
demands a dbposition which is not meant to be able to work out 
its own righteousness by the deeds of the law, (a fiindamental mis- 
take of the Jews, Rom. 10: 3), but to receive by fiuth the right- 
eousness of Christ, in like manner as Paul, Phil. 3: 9, — and 
which requires that it be done with inward freedom, without 
the letter of the law, which the law aspired after, and which, ac- 
companied by threatenings of Divine punishment, prescribes in 
external methods, what we have to do and to sufifer. Where this 
is still wanting, there is no true Christianity ; there still, the 
opposing lust of the flesh predominates over the spirit, and not 



r 



1838.] Old and New Testaments. t41 

the spirit over the flesh, while the latter from the first gradoallv 
frees us from sin and from the law, Gal. 5: 17, 18, ^. And, 
indeed, for him who has not yet come to the point where the 
most earnest language of the law has a salutary effect, as well 
as the alluring voice of the gospel,* a part of the law has lost 
its validity ; its destination has become merely preparatory,— > 
partly political, which must have given to the Jewish theocracy 
an external support till the Author and Head of the true cbris« 
tian theocracy appeared, — and partly ritual, which could only 
preserve the need of redemption and expiation, until he came 
who could alone satisfy that need. In reference hereto, Christ 
isy with peculiar propriety, named, not only tlie object, but the 
end of the law, Rom. 10 : 4. So then who among us has 
occasion for the law as a schoolmaster and a tutor, Gal. 
4: 24. 5: 2 ? He does not aspire after the freedom of the 
children of God, who has already found it in the christian church, 
which ceases not to make known the righteousness and mercy 
of God, not merely through the preaching of the divine word, 
but in its very existence and through its entire manifestation. 

Thus we may now easily see, how far the Old Testament 
can be yet for us a rule of faith and life. We here speak, not 
of its worth in respect to a learned acquaintance with the histo- 
ry of religion, or for a learned commentary on the New Testa- 
ment, (its historical and hermeneutical use, although this has an 
important aspect, not merely for learned men, but for every 
Christian). We speak especially of its value for religion itself, 
in so far as it can always secure for us an incitement to pious 
feeling, as awakening those dispositions on which depend the fear 
of God, love, confidence, self-knowledge, faith, obedience, and 
as it respects the desire to seek for information concerning God, 
his mercy and righteousness, his law and promises. This is its 
doctrinal and moral use. Then, indeed, we ought always to 
recollect that the special object of the New Testament is not to 
make known to u& the law, but the gospel, not in dark images 
and predictions, but in the clear light of actual fulfilment. 
There is present with us one who is greater than the lawgiver, or 
the priests, the kings and prophets of the Old Testament, Luke 
10:24. 11:31,32. Heb. iii. and vii., through whom mercy 
and truth have come, John 1: 17, from whose fulness, a living 

* So the Lutheran Catechism rightly places the ten commandments 
before faith. 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 31 



242 Old and New Teitaments. [Jak. 

fountain of new life and of higher knowledge streams forth on 
those who believe upon him, John 7: 38. It is not, simply, how-* 
ever, that there is a revelation of the hitherto concealed and se» 
cret mysteries of the divine counsels, Rom. 16: 25. Eph. 3: 15., 
but also that tlie covering w as removed away from those things, 
which even to the prophets themselves, who predicted the grace 
that was to come, was rather a point for investigation and search 
than a clear vision, 1 Pet. 1 : 10. It is now settled not only in rela- 
tion to that which is old and abolished, but also in what manner 
that is to be understood which contains profounder and more per- 
manent truth. It cannot therefore be doubted that there is in the 
New Testament a far more perfect norm and source of christian 
knowledge, than in the Old. The one is an original fountain, the 
other a secondary one. * We would as little over-estimate the 
latter, on the one hand, by drawing from it alone the whole 
system of christian faith, f as, on the other hand, unite in under- 
valuing it, in which extreme we find some of the Gnostics, who 
went so far as to ascribe to it a wholly difierent design from the 
revelations which were made by Christ ;— consequently on the 
ground, that though the Old Testament had a divine origin, yet 
it was limited (according to the opinions of the anabaptists and 
some other modern sects) to things merely earthly and sensual 
— to the exclusion of a spiritual germ. This view is in opposi- 
tion to Christ and his apostles, with whom the Xvaai was ever 
the nkfi()waui ; the xarap/v/oai was always placed in connection 
with the atfjuah Rom. 3: 31. The effect has been to obstruct 
the right interpretation of the New Testament. 

Of the former error — a one-sided, over-estimate of the Old 
Testament, we can by no means acquit our older theologians, 
either as it regards their view of the Old Testament in general, 
or their handling of particular passages. It was not enough to 
find the germ of the peculiar laws of Christianity in the Old Tes- 
tament ; the entire delineation must be discovered, (t was not 
simply concluded, that we must find a general reference to 
Christ, but also that futurity was clearly revealed to the pious 

* With this readily agrees Schleieniiacber's Ansicht von der nor- 
nialen MignitUt des A If ens Testaments, Darstell. des Gla. § 150 
Zusaiz. 

f As was attempted to be done on the broadest scale by John 
Wigaod and Matth. Judex in their Syntagma or Corpus doctrinae ex 
V. T. tantum collecturo, dispositum et concinnatum, Basil. 1564. Par- 
ticular examples may be found in the older systems. 



1838.] Old and New Testainents. 843 

men among the Israelites. Even the reformers, who so beau- 
ufuUy developed the t^ontrast between the law and the gospel, 
were not always sufficiently guarded on this point. To such 
views must they be led, who accommodate themselves to what 
are often arbitrary and fanciful modes of interpretation ; — where, 
without regard to the context, a forced interpretation is at once 
given to the letter ; very remote resemblances, to the prejudice 
of the natural meaning of the word, are valued, and the truth 
which lies at the ground of the typical and prophetic meaning, 
is so disfigured, that the principle must always occasion mis-* 
takes in the application. When now, on the other hand, a con- 
tradiction is assumed, partly by entire sects, e. g. the Arminians 
and Socinians, and partly by particular individuals of our church, 
e. g. Calixtus ; when these contradictions are drawn out into 
particulars, because individual doctrines, e. g. that of the trinity, 
cannot be found explicitly announced in the Old Testament ; 
even when the belief of the pious men in the Old Testament 
is declared to be only a belief indirectly in Christ ; — ^we cannot 
indeed, approve of every thing which lies at the foundation of 
such expressions as the foregoing, or which is introduced in con- 
nection with them, — ^yet neither can we entirely throw them 
aside, as the older theologians did. We cannot truly charge 
those who advance them with intentional unfairness, while they 
employ the historical mode of interpretation in opposition to 
a pseudo-dogmatic — while they follow out the principle, that, 
in connection with the application of generally received her- 
meneutical rules, one must seek to investigate what the writers 
themselves intended, as they were understood by their contem- 
poraries, without daring to introduce any later views or notions. 
We censure such modes of interpretation only as would destroy 
the most undeniable connection between the Old and New Te^ 
taments, which recognizes in the former nothing of a higher 
character, and which willingly allows the most violent mode of 
proceeding, ere it will concede any references to Christ, — white 
it maintains that the New Testament is so essentially different 
from the Old. 

The error of the older theologians, we would avoid, inasmuch 
as we do not directly maintain that the religion of the Old Tes- 
tament is identical with that of the New, or that its writings, 
like those of the New, treat altogether of Christ ; but this iden- 
tity appears only so far as it [the Old Testament] is the norm 
and the source of religious truth for us. 



Si44 Old and New Testaments. [Jan. 

We thus throw no obstacle in the way of the historical inter- 
pretation, but merely place it, (without determining at the out- 
set its extent,) on the principles of the New Testament, — the 
christian interpretation ; — in the position which we are fully 
ready to justify. Here, especially, we must not consider mere- 
ly what circumstances are in favor of a particular position, but 
how they bear upon and stand related to another — the teleo-' 
logical method of considering the subject. Now, as little as the 
naturalist allows himself to be satisfied, when he regards plants 
and animals merely from that point of view in which they pro- 
mote the convenience or luxury of men, so little will a sound 
understanding allow itself to be persuaded, that a final end is 
cmly an accidental result of a process, without any intention be- 
ing aimed at by the Author of nature. The natural philosopher 
knows well, that the higher formations in the series of organized 
development are from the lower, so that the one casts light on 
the other, and that it is certain, that the right means have not 
been employed for understanding the natural history of an or- 
gan, when it lias been considered separate from its earlier con- 
dition, and no investigation has been had into its previous state. 
Even so no reflecting man will object, when we assert that the 
fundamental ideas and objections which are found in the dog- 
mas and contests of philosophers ^e. g. one may remember the 
controversy respecting innate ideas) are the same which occu- 
py ourselves, although we are considerably advanced in the 
Knowledge of their meaning, and in the modes of expressing 
them. Why then in the writings of divinely inspired lawgivers 
and prophets, should we dare to see only what the lexicons and 
grammars spell out from words ? Liong and rightfully has the 
important idea been inculcated, that the books of the Bible are 
to be read as we read other writings. Must we on that account 
wholly forget, that they are divine w ritings ? 

Finally, the inquiry concerning the Connection between the 
Old and New Testaments, (which has been handled, to a wide 
extent, and in many contraversies, the true grounds of which by 
no means lie where the words employed would seem to imply,) 
has been so developed, that we must here satisfy ourselves, to 
have indicated the principal point, in the critical examination of 
the Old Testament Scriptures in their relation to the christian 
church. We cannot here introduce the marked difference, as- 
serted by Paul, Gal. 3: 15 seq., between the Abrahamic cove- 
nant and that of Moses, and their relations with each other and 



1838.] IMon Bibk Dtctionarif. S4& 

with that of Christ, though this would be a subject not un* 
important in itself, nor in its bearing on the controversies of both 
the Protestant sects, [the Calvinists and the Lutherans]. One 
thing, however, will demand in the sequel a fuller examination 
— the value of the Old Testament >\ill naturally claim par- 
ticular consideration, not merely that we may consider the sub- 
jects of revelation and of inspiration, but also that we may know 
hoto to consider them. 



ARTICLE XH. 
Cbitical Notices. 



1. — The Union Bible Dictionary, Prepared for the American 
Sunday School Union^ and revised by the Committee of Pub- 
licatian. Philadelphia : A. S. S. Union, 1837. pp. 648. 

It would not be easy to specify any more hopeful symptom nt the 
present day than the spirit of biblical research which has sprung up 
along with the progress of Sunday School and Bible Class instruc- 
tion. Neither teacher nor pupil now feels it to be enough merely 
to master the letter of the sacred volume, or to become familiar 
with the popular and common-place explanations of its text. The 
Scriptures are beginning to be searched and their hidden riches to 
be exposed and brought to the light. Every thing which can tend 
to put the reader in more perfect possession of the exact mind of 
the Spirit in his word is laid under tribute. Criticism, parallelism, 
antiquities, travels, topography, eastern manners, customs, costumes, 
idioms, scenery — in fine, the whole range of oriental illustration ia 
now drawn upon in order to remove the obscurities of holy writ, and 
make what is plain plainer. The wants which have been made to 
be felt in consequence of this growing spirit of investigation have 
already been met to a considerEdl>le oegree, and it is gratifying to 
know that so many of the ablest pens in our country are devoted try 
this service. That such is the case we have fresh evidence in the 
very valuable litde volume here presented to the public by that in- 
stitution which has done so much to foster this spirit, as well as to 
minister to its gratification. The ^ Union Bible Dictionary' needs 
only the passport of its own merits to secure it at once a high place 
in the estunation of every student of the Bible. 

This work, though comprisbg all the most valuable portions of 



946 Critical Notices. [J^if « 

the Dictiooaiy connected and improved by the editorial labors of 
the Rev. Dr. Alexander, has still received such essential additions 
and modifications as to render it in fact a strictly original work ; one 
in which a leading design has been throughout to a&pt it most fully 
to the present improved state of biblical science. In connection 
with this, the object has been to make it so to correspond in 
principle, character, and uses with the other publications of the So- 
ciety, that the whole shall form together a kind of complete Biblical 
Cyclopaedia. 

From a thorough examination of the entire volume we feel pre- 
pared to say that it is a most successful attempt to supply the vanous 
desiderata in all former works of the same kind, nor could we easily 
point out a volume of the same compass which embodies a larger 
amount of valuable information selected with more judgment or di- 
gested in better order. Far from being a mere dictionary of proper 
names adapted to the biography or geography of the Bible, it con- 
tains a condensed, but extremely satisfactory, summary of explana- 
tions upon all the leading terms and subjects which naturally excite 
inquiry in the mind of an attentive reader of the Scriptures. 

The prominent excellencies which have struck us in the perusal 
of the * Union Dictionary' are (1) The judgment, tact, and discrimi- 
nation displayed in the matter brought toother under the different 
articles, and the neat simplicity with which it is expressed. On an 
inspection of the whole, the epithet judicious would perhaps best 
convey the impression produced upon the mind of the intelligent 
reader. Nothing is wanting, nothing superfluous ; just that is said, 
for the most part, under every head, which it was important should 
be said, and nothing more. And while the most rigid accuracy of 
definition has evidently been studied in every page, an equally anx- 
ious and successful efibrt is visible to clothe the whole in a style of 
perspicuity that shall adapt it to the comprehension of every grade 
of intellect (2) The air of freshness and of manifest authenticity 
which is imparted to the illustrations drawn from the journals of 
missionaries and travellers to the East In this department while 
nearly every thing is neio, it is yet so pertinent^ that it is not easy to 
describe the interest and relish with which it is pursued. (3) The 
amount of pictorial illustration and its peculiarly axUkentic character. 
The work abounds with plates handsomely executed and evidently 
drawn from the very best sources. In contemplating them the mind 
feels an inward assurance that they are not mere &ncy sketches, 
but the most faithful representations which could be obtamed. It is 
evident that great pains and great expense have been incurred in 
this department, but both have been well laid out — ^It would be easy 
to specify other points of excellence which characterize this volume, 
but we conclude our very earnest recommendation of it by advert- 
ing to its freedom from sectarian peculiarities and the great care 



1838.] Works of Henry Hallam. 847 

and accuracy with which it has heen hrought out. The services of 
of the most distinguished bihlical scholars in the country, the com- 
mittee say, have been employed in a general revision of it, while 
many of its most important articles have been subjected to a critical 
examination in other quarters. At the low price of 75 cts. per copy 
an extensive sale alone can repay the labor and cost bestowed upon 
it, and that it is abundantly entitled to such a circulation, we have no 
hesitation in affirming. 

2. — Works of Henby Hallam. 

IrUroduetian to the Literature ofEuropeyin the Fifteenth^ Sixteenth 
and Seventeenth centuries, ny Henry Hallam^ F. R, A. jS., CoT" 
responding member of the Academy of Moral and Political Scten* 
ces in the French Institute. London : John Murray, 1837. Vol. 
I. pp. 659. 

View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages, hy Henry 
Haltam. From the sixth London Edition^ complete in one i>oU 
vme. New York : Harper & Brothers, 18^. pp. 568. 

Mr. Hallam has been Ions and favorably known as a writer on 
both sides of the Atlantic. His view of the State of Europe during 
the Middle Ages has been published in six editions in England ana 
two in this country. His Constitutional History of England from the 
accession of Henry VII. to the death of George 11., in some respects 
a continuadon of the History of the Middle Ages, has been issued in 
three English editions and in one or two American. We do not 
know, that Mr. H. has published any other works, except papers for 

C nodical publications, etc. He is a member of the committee of 
>Td Brougham^s Society for the DifRision of Useful Knowledge, 
and accords, we suppose, with that distinguished man in politics. 

Of the Literary Introduction the author says : " Some departments 
of literature are passed over, or partially touched. Among the form- 
er are books relating to particular arts, as agriculture or painting, 
or subjects of merely local mterest, as those of English laws; among 
the latter is the great and extensive portion of every library, the his- 
torical. Unless where history has been written with peculiar beauty 
of language, or philosophical spirit, I have generally omitted all men- 
tion of it^' The principal authorities that the author mentions are 
the Bibliotheca Universalis, and the Pandectae Universales of Con- 
rad Gesner ; the Bibliotheca Selecta of Possevin ; Fabricius^s edi- 
tion of the Polyhistor of Morhof ; the Origine Progresso e State at* 
tuale d'ogni Litteratura of Andres, a Spanish Jesuit, characterized 
as an extraordinary performance ; the Historv of Literature, a plan 
undertaken in Germany, (but a small part of which has been com- 
pleted), under the general direction of Eichhom, — in which Bou- 



Stt Critical Notices. [Jan. 

terwek had the department of poetry and polite letters, Sprengel of 
anatomy and medicine, KHstner of the matnematical sciences, fiuhle 
of speculative philosophy, and Heeren of classical philolosy ; Eich- 
horn's History of Literature in six volumes ; the works or Tlrabos- 
chi, Comiani and Gingu^n^, on Italian literature; Warton's History 
of English Poetry ; tl^ philosophical works of Brucker and Tenne* 
mann ; the French works of Montucla, Portal, Bayle, Niceron, and 
the Biographic Universelle ; Chalmerses English Biographical Dic- 
tionary, etc. 

The first chapter of the work is on the general state of literature 
In the Middle Ages to the end of the 14th century. The last of the 
ancients, and one who forms a link between the classical period of 
literature and that of the Middle Ages, in which he was a favorite 
•author, was Boethius, a man of fine genius, whose Consolation of 
Philosophy if as written in prison, shortly before his death. Thence- 
forward the downfall of learning and eloquence was inconceivably 
rapid. A state of general ignorance lasted about five centuries. A 
slender but living stream, however, kept flowing on in the worst 
times. Guizot and Hallam agree in the opinion that the seventh 
century is the nadir of the human mind in Europe. Its movement 
in advance began in the 8th century, with Charlemagne. England 
soon furnished names of considerable importance in Theodore, Bede, 
and Alcuin. Cathedral and conventual schools were created or re- 
stored by Charlemagne, which produced happy fruits under his suc- 
cessors. It is the most striking circumstance in the literary annals 
of the Middle Ages, that they are more deficient in native genius 
than in acquired ability. There was a tameness, a mediocrity, a 
servile habit of copying from others. Only two extraordinary men 
■stand out from the crowd in literature and philosophy — Scotus Eri- 
gena and Gerbert. At the beginning of the 12th century, we enter 
on a new division in the literary history of Europe. The most im- 
portant circumstances which tended to arouse Europe from her 
lethargy were the institutions of universities, and the methods pur« 
sued in them ; the cultivation of the modem languages, followed by 
the multiplication of books, and the extension of the art of writing ; 
the investigation of die Roman law ; and the return to the study of 
the Latin language in its purity. Collegiate foundations in universities 
seem to have been derived mm the Saracens. At the year 1400, 
we find a national literature subsisting in seven European languages, 
three spoken in the Spanish peninsula, the French, the Italiem, the 
German, and the English. The 14th century was not in the 
slightest decree superior to the preceding age in respect to classical 
:studieS. The first real restorer of polite letters was Petrarch. 

Mr. Hallam, in his second chapter, treats of the literature of Eu< 
rope from 1400 to 1440< The latter of these periods is nearly coin- 
cident with the complete development of an ardent thirst for classi- 



1838.] Works of Henry HaUam. M9 

cal, especially Ghrecian, literature in Italy, as the year 1400 was 
with its first manifestation. There are vestiges much earlier than 
1400 of the study of Greek literature. But its decided revival can- 
not be placed before 1395, when Chrysoloras established himself at 
Florence as public teacher of Greek. He had some eminent disci- 
ples. The principal Italian cities became more wealthy af\er 1350. 
Books were cheaper than in other parts of Europe. In Milan, about 
1300, there were fifty persons wh6 lived by copying them. At Bo* 
l(^na also, it was a regular occupation at fixed prices. Albertus 
Magnus, whose collected works were published at Lyons, in 1651, 
in twenty-one folio volumes, may pass for the most fertile writer in 
the world. Upon the three columns,— <;hivalry, gallantry, and reli- 

f ion,— says Hallam, repose the fictions of the middle ages. In the 
rst pait of the 15th century, we find three distinct currents of reli- 
gious opinion, the high pretensions of the Roman church to a sort of 
moral, as well as meological infallibility, and to a paramount au- 
thority even in temporal afiairs ; secoud, the councils of Constance 
and Basle and the contentions of the Gallican and German churches 
asainst the encroachments of the holy see, had raised up a strong 
adverse party ; third, the avowed heretics, such as the disciples of 
Wiclif and Huss. Thomas k Kempis's De Imitatione Christi is said 
to have gone through 1800 editions, and to have been read, proba- 
bly, more than any work after the Scriptures. 

The third chapter embraces the literature of Europe from 1440 
to 1500. About 1450, Laurentius Valla gives us the earliest speci- 
mens of explanations of the New Testament founded on the ori(p- 
nal languages of Scripture. The capture of Constantinople, m 
1453, drove a few learned Greeks to hospitable Italy. About the 
end of the 14th century, impressions were taken from engraved 
blocks of wood, sometimes for playing cards, which came into use 
not long before that time ; sometimes for rude cuts of saints. 
Gradually entire pages were impressed in this manner, and thus be- 
gan what are called block-books, printed in fixed characters, but 
never exceeding a very few leaves. The earliest book printed from 
the movable types of Gutenberg is generally believed to be the 
Latin Bible, commonly called the Mazarin Bible. This appears to 
have been executed in 1455. An almanac for 1457 has been de- 
tected. From 1470 to 1480, 1297 books were printed in Italy, of 
which 234 are editions of ancient classics. The first Hebrew book, 
Jarchi^s Commentary on the Pentateuch, was printed in Italy in 1475. 
The whole Hebrew Bible was printed in Soncino in 1488. Several 
distinguished men now arose such as PoUtian, Picus of Mirandola, 
Reuchlin and Lionardo da Vinci. Erasmus and Budaeus were now 
devoting incessant labor to the acquisition of the Greek langua^. 
Erasmus's Adages, printed at Basle in 1500, was doubtless the chief 
prose work of the century beyond the limits of Italy. It is certain 
Vol. XI. No. 29. 32 



250 Critical Notices. [Jan. 

that much more than ten thousand editions of booka or pamphlet3 
were printed from 1470 to 1500. More than half of the number 
appeared in Italy. The price of books was diminished by four fifths 
after the invention of printing. 

The fourth chapter treats of the literature of Europe from 1500 
to 1520. Leo X. became pope in 1513. He began by plac'mgmen 
of letters in the most honorable stations of his court There were 
two, Bembo and Sadolet, who had by common consent reached a 
consummate elegance of style. The personal taste of Leu was al- 
most entirely directed towards poetry and the beauties of style. We 
owe to him the publication of the first five books of the Annals of 
Tacitus. In 1514, above 100 professors received salaries in the 
Roman university or gymnasium. Erasmus difiuses a lustre over 
his age, which no other name among the learned supplies. His 
Greek Testament was published in 1516. More's Utopia was the 
onh' work of genius furnished by England in this age. 

m treating of the Reformation, Mr. Hallam, as it seems to us, 
does great injustice to Luther : ^^ The doctrines of Luther,'^ he re- 
marks, ^^ taken altogether, are not more rational, that is, more con- 
formable to what men, a priori, would expect to find in religion, 
than those of the church of Rome ; nor did he ever pretend that 
they were so. As to the privilege of free inquiry, it was of course 
exercised by those who deserted their ancient altars, but certainly 
not upon any latitudinarian theory of a right to judge amiss. Nor 
again, is there any foundation for imeigining that Luther was con- 
cerned for the interests of literature. None had he himself, save 
theological ; nor are there, as I apprehend, many allusions to pro- 
fane studies, or any proof of his regard to them, in all his works. 
On the contrary, it is probable that both the principles of this great 
founder of the Reformation, and the natural tendency of so intense 
an application to theological controversy, checked for a time the 
progress of philological and philosophical literature onthis side the 
Alps." Again : "In the history of the Reformation, Luther is in- 
compambly the greatest name. We see him, in the skilful compo- 
sition of Robertson, the chief figure of a groupe of gownsmen, stand- 
ing in contrast on the canvass with the crowned rivals of France and 
Austria, and their attendant warriors, but blended in the unity of 
that historic picture. This amazing influence on the revolutions of 
his own age, and on the opinions of mankind, seems to have produ- 
ced, as is not unnatural, an exaggerated notion of his intellectual 
greatness. It is admitted on all sides, that he wrote his own lan- 
guage with force and purity ; and he is reckoned one of its best 
models. The hymns in use with the Lutheran church, many of 
which are his own, possess a simple dignity and devoutness, never, 
'probably, excelled in that class of poetry. But from the Latin 
works of Luther few readers, I believe, will rise without disappoint- 



1838.] Works of Henry Hallam. 'Zd I 

ment. Their intemperance, their coarseness, their inele^nce, their 
scurrility, their wild paradoxes, that menace the foundations of reli* 
gious morality, are not compensated, so far at least as my slight ac- 
quaintance with them extends, by much strength or acutenesp, and 
still less by any impressive eloquence." " The total want of self- 
restraint [in Luther], with the intoxicating effects of presumptuous- 
ness, is sufficient to account for aberrations, which men of regular 
minds construe into actual madness." 

These extraordinary statements of Hallam are in keeping with re- 
marks in his previous works. In his anxiety to avoid the partizan- 
ship, as he describes it, of such men as Isaac Milne r, he falls, as it 
seems to us, into tlie opposite extreme. Luther comes out from his 
hands shorn of nearly all Jiis honors, an ignorant, furious, exacerbated 
monk, who, if he could have had his way, would have involved the 
world in a Protestant midnight. But Hal lam's statements seem to be 
a little inconsistent with themselves. Luther wrote and spoke German 
with great perfection. He composed numerous excellent hymns, 
which is certainly a rare gift. He made a most excellent transla- 
tion, as all acknowledge, of the Bible from the original Hebrew and 
Greek into German — a translation which is to German literature 
what our autfiorized translation is to English — ^a standard of the 
tongue. Surely Luther must have had some philology, some com- 
mon sense, some judgment, to have made a translation, with the 
slight helps which he had, which created a language, and whose 
merit is fully acknowledged by such writers as the Roman Catholic, 
Frederic Schlegel. That Luther was an opponent of the study of 
tiie Greek and Latin profane writers is news to us. Hallam appears 
to receive all the splenetic remarks of Erasmus as indubitable proof. 
Erasmus with all his learning and wit, had more sympathy, we fear, 
with Horace than with Paul, and, in his latter davs, is one of the 
last sources to which we should apply for correct mformation in re- 
gard to Luther. In another passage, Hallam speaks of Luther as 
one whose ^^ soul was penetrated with a fervent piety, and whose 
integrity as well as purity of life are unquestioned." Again, he 
writes of the total absence in him of self-restraint, which it would be 
difficult to reconcile with fervent piety. We have been accustomed 
to regard self-government as one of the most important parts of emi* 
nent piety. Hallam gives a wholesale opinion of Luther's Latin 
works, while he confesses that he has but a slight acquaintance with 
them. Hundreds of passages in those works have impressive elo- 
quence, if they have nothing else. '^ The best authorities," says 
Hallam, *^ for the early history of the Reformation are Seckendorf 
His^. Lutheranismi, and Sleidan Hist, de la Reformation, in Coura- 
yer's French translation." Hallam makes no allusion to the great 
work of J. G. Planck, incomparably the best work on the Protestant 
aide, and very candid and impartial also. ^^ From Luther's Grermaa 



252 Critical Notices. [Jan. 

tmnslation, and from the Latin Vulgate, the English one of Tyn- 
dale and Coverdale, published in 1535 or 1536, is avowedly taken." 
On the contrary there is satisfactory proof that Tyndale translated 
from the original Greek and Hebrew. How far Coverdale was ac- 
quainted with Hebrew does not appear. 

The fifth chapter of the work before us treats of the history of 
ancient literature in Europe from 1520 to 1550. The labors of Sa- 
dolet, Bembo, Erasmus, Budaeus, Camerarius, Gesner and others, 
are passed briefly in review. The sixth chapter is occupied with 
the theological literature which we have partly anticipated in our 
notice of Luther. Of the Colloquies of Erasmus, which had an im- 
portant bearing on the Reformation, 24,000 copies were sold in a 
single year. Keference is here had to the Institutes of Calvin, to 
the Loci Communes of Melancthon, the sermons of Latimer, etc. 
" It may not" says the author, " be invidious to surmise, that Luther 
and Melancthon serve little other purpose, at least in England, than 
to give an occasional air of erudition to a theological paragraph, or 
to supply its margin with a reference that few readers will verify." 
We know not but that such is the case in England. We should in- 
fer it from the ignorance of our author himself on the subject, but 
the remark does not hold good on the continent nor in the United 
States. The whole works of Luther are frequently imported into 
this country. Large editions of his Commentary on the Galatians 
have been published. A new and complete edition of Melancthon 
is now coming out in Germany under the charge of Bietschneider. 
Three editions of Calvin's Commentaries on the New Testament 
have been sold in Grermany and this country within six or eight 
years. Even in England, within two years past, an edition of Cal- 
vin on Romans, and of Luther on Gralatians has been printed. 

The seventh chapter contains the history of speculative, moral 
and political philosophy, and of jurisprudence, in Europe, from 1520 
to 1550. In speculative philosophy, we have Paracelsus, Agrippa, 
and Jerome Cardan ; in political and moral philosophy, Calvin, Me- 
lancthon, Erasmus, Thomas Eiyot, Cortegiano and especially Nico- 
las MachiaveL Hallam's estimate of Machiavel is very able and dis- 
criminating. MachiavePs Discourses may now be read with great ad- 
vantage, especially as the course of civil society tends further towards 
democracy. His works must, liowever, be read with large deduc- 
tions. His History of Florence is enough to immortalize his name. 

The eighth chapter contains the history of the literature of taste ; 
and the nmth, of scientific and miscellaneous literature in Europe 
from 1520 to 1550. Though these chapters contain, like other parts 
of the volume, many interesting facts, and not a few profound ob- 
servations, yet our limits preclude any further quotation or reference. 

We will only remark, that the edition of the Middle Ages by the 
Harpers, is brought out in excellent taste, and makes one very con- 



1838.] The Chrutian Professor. 253 

venient and portable volume. It contains what is not common in 
these days, a very full index. 

31 — The Christicai Professor, addressed in a series of Counsels and 
Cautions to the Members of Christian Churches. By John 
Angell James. New York : D. Appleton & Co. 18SHS. pp. 

3sa. 

The Rev. John Angell James of Birmingham has been too Ions 
before the American public as the author of the l&mday Scho^ 
Teachers^ Guide, the Church Members^ Guide, the Family Monitor, 
etc., and is too extensively known as the friend and correspondent of 
several eminent clergymen and others in this country, to need com- 
mendation to the favorable regards of our readers. The lively in- 
terest which he has ever manifested in the advancement of religion 
in the United States, as well as the influence of his writings in pro- 
moting it, has taught us to regard him as one of ourselves. While 
he is admired as a pious, judicious and instructive writer, he is also 
hailed as a brother, throughout our churches, and each new produc- 
tion from his pen is received by many with the confidence and ar- 
dor of a confirmed and intense christian affection. The publication 
of the " Christian Professor ^"^ is happily adapted to widen the sphere 
of this affectionate regard for the author and his works. 

The substance of this ^^ series of Counsels and Cautions^'* as the 
author states in his preface, was delivered in a course of sermons 
addressed to the chuich of which he is pastor. This book is design- 
ed as a sequel to the '^ Church Members'* Guide,^'* and treats of me 
practical rather than the private, experimental and doctrinal parts of 
religion ; though these are distinctly exhibited and insisted on, as 
essential, not only to true piety, but to the acceptable profession of 
it Yet the design of the author is to ^^ contemplate the believer 
rather as a professor, than a Christian, or at least rather as a Christ- 
ian in relation to the church and to the world, than in his individual 
caracity, or in his retirements/^ 

The work is divided into nineteen chapters, embracing the follow- 
ing topics : 

What the christian profession imports. — ^The obligation and design 
of the christian profession. — ^The dangera of self-deceptbn. — ^The 
young professor. — ^An attempt to compare the present generation of 
profe^rs with others that have preceded them. — ^The necessity and 
importance of professors not being satisfied with low degrees of piety, 
and of their seeking to attain to eminence. — ^The duty of professora 
to avoid the appearance of evil. — On conformity to the world. — Chi 
the conduct or professors in reference to politics. — On brotherly love. 
— ^The influence of professors. — Conduct of professora towards un- 
converted relatives. — ^The unmarried professor. — ^The professor in 



254 Critical Notices, [Jaw. 

prosperity. — ^The professor in adversity. — The conduct of professors 
away from home. — The backsliding professor. — On the necessity 
of the Holy S[)irit^s influence to sustam the christian professor. — ^The 
dying protessor. 

We have read most of these chapters with great satisfaction, and 
cordially recommend the book to American readers. Though the 
author had in his eye the professors of Christianity in another nation, 
and wrote for their benefit especially, his Counsels and Caudons 
and even his descriptions of the present generation of professors, are 
equally applicable to those of our own country. He does honor to 
several of our own authors by quoting them in confirmation or Illus- 
tration of the sentiments he inculcates. Among these are an admi- 
rable ^^ address to persons on their joining the church contained in 
a manual used in one of the Presbyterian churches in America," the 
excellent " advice" ffiven by Edwards " to a young lady who had 
just commenced the life of faith," and portions of a sermon by the 
Rev. Albert Barnes of Philadelphia on " the rule of Christianity in re- 
gard to conformity to the world," which has been republished ia 
England. 

The sentiments of this little volume are evangelical. Some pas- 
sages of it are eloquent, and highly attractive. 

4. — Outlines of a history of the Court of Rome and of the Temporal 
Poiper of the Popes. Translated from the French. Phila- 
delphia : Joseph Whetham, 1837. pp. 328. 

This book is executed in a manner which is creditable to the pub- 
lisher. In its bearings upon the Catholic controversy in this country 
both ecclesiastical and political, it is a timely and important publica- 
tion. It is divided into thirteen chapters, the running titles of which 
are, " The origin of the temporal power of the popes." — ^^ Enter- 
prises of the popes of the ninth century." — ^" The tenth century." — 
*' Enterprises of the popes of the eleventh century." — ^*' Quarrels 
between the popes and the sovereigns of the twelfth century." — 
" The power of the popes of the thirteenth centunr." — ^" The four- 
teenth century." — " The fifteenth century." — ^ Policy of the popes 
of the sixteenth century." — ^''The attempts of the popes of the 
seventeenth century." — ^"The eighteenth century." — ^'^ Kecapitula- 
tion." — ^*' The conduct of the coiut of Rome since the year 1800." 

The first French edition of the work was published in 1810. The 
last chapter, (on the conduct of the court of^ Rome since 1800,) was 
not added until the fourth edition, which was published in 1818. 
To this also was appended a " Chronological Table of the popes" 
from St. Peter in the first centurvr, which is continued, in the Ameri- 
can edition, to the election of Gregory XVI., in 1831. Thb table 
throws some light upon several of the details of the work, and is a 
valuable appenoage. 



1838.] History of the Court of Rome. 35& 

This work, though published anonymously, is asserted to be th& 
production of M. munou. M. Dupin, recently a member of the 
French ministry, calls it a historical work of the first order, and 
gives it a place in his " Bibliotheque Choisie des Uures de droit 
qu'il est le plus utile d'acquerir et de connaitre.*^ 

We extract the following from the able and interesting preface to* 
the edition now before us. 

^^ The author composed this work, (which he modestly calls an 
essay,) under peculiar advantages. The Archives of the Vatican^ 
which had been removed to Paris, were in his custody, at the time, 
by order of the government, (says M. Dupin,) and subject to his in- 
spection. He appears to have been elaborate in research and judi- 
cious in the selection of his authorities. He is clear and methodical 
in the arrangement of facts, philosophical and profound in his views 
and spirited in his composition. His purpose in composing it was 
to prove that the temporal power of the Roman pontins originated 
in fraud and usurpation ; that its influence upon their pastoral minis- 
try has been to mar and degrade it ; tliat its continuance is dangerous 
to the peace and liberties of Europe ; and that its constant influence 
and effects are to retard the advancement of civilization and know- 
led^. Among the documents upon which he relies are many 
which, he says, had never before been published. 

" In treating the subject, M. Daunou very naturally gives promi- 
nence to those passages in the history of the court of Kome which 
are particularly connected with the aiiairs of his own country. The 
liberties of the Gallican church and the quarrels which have oc- 
curred between the kings of France and the Roman pontiffs, on 
account of those liberties, are set forth with considerable detail.^' 

It should be remarked, however, that the author has, in some in- 
stances, traced with minuteness the policy and conduct of the court 
of Rome towards other countries, and the effects of that policy. 

It adds ereatly to the value of this work that the author is de- 
cidedly a Hom&n Catholic, and that, while he deprecates the tempo- 
ral power of the popes, he not only admits but positively asserts 
their supremacy in all things purely spiritual, and the claims of the 
Roman Catholic church to determine authoritatively all matters of 
faith. In the latter particular he differs from Gibbon in his ^^ His- 
tory of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,'^ and from Hallam, 
in his *' View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages.^^ Dif- 
fering from the above authors, as M. Daunou does, in regard to the 
spiritual supremacy of the Roman pontiffs, his agreement with them 
in other matters or fact and opinion may be deemed a mutual con- 
firmation, and a disagreement between them, a reason for further 
investi^tion. 

On Uie whole, this book comes to us with high authority and we 
regard it as well adapted to the instruction of American readers. It 



S56 Critical Notices. [Jan. 

teaches lessons of wisdom in regard to the aasamptions of ecclesias- 
tical power in matters of faith, which will not fail to he appreciated 
by the members of the protestant churches in this country, and our 
smtesmen and those who aspire to become such may here obtain 
enlightened and definite views of that court which was the founder^ 
and has been the principal teacher of European diplomacy. 

It is also well remarked by the American editor, that '' the senti- 
ments of the author, upon the important topics of this book, are not 
unworthy of the attention of the Roman Catholic citizens of the 
United States. 

'^ For a long period these topics have attracted the attention of 
the politicians as well as the clergy of France. Several works have 
been published in that country, relative to the temporal power of the 
popes, among which a small volume entitled *' Origine, progres, et 
limites de la puissance des popes,^' etc. (Paris 1^1) which pos- 
sesses considerable merit. The object of it is the same as that of 
this. Its author remarks in his preface that his work ^ may be use- 
ful not only to ecclesiastics, who ought to blush at their need of in- 
struction in that matter, but also to those public men, who feel the 
necessity of maintaining the Catholic religion, and at the same time 
making it consistent with our liberties.^ The liberal party in France, 
(to which both these authors belong,) insist upon the restoration of 
the Catholic religion to the simplicity and moderation of the ancient 
church, as a measure which is indispensable to the civil and reli- 
ffious liberties of that country. This simplicity has been marred, 
they say, by the false decretals, the decree of Gracian, the decretals 
of the popes, etc. and the church (than which as it was in the early 
ages no society could be more free) has, they affirm, become an 
•engine of intolerance and even of despotism. This party is opposed 
by another, which contends for the system as it is, notwithstanding 
the admitted spuriousness of the decretals, upon which the most ol^ 
jectionable parts of the system are founded. Their disputes have 
ffiven origin to many treatises of great learning and ability, upon 
tiie subject of the early discipline of the church— of the liberties of 
the Grallican church — of the pragmatics-^-of the concordats, etc. etc. 
It is not an absurd supposition, that causes which, in times piast, have 
-a^cted injuriously the public and individual interests of the people 
•of France may, in times future, affect in like manner the citizens of 
other countries. On no other supposition can we, in any case, with 
propriety invoke history, as a guide in present emergencies. That 
the doctrines of this book, and the expedients proposed in it, are 
still accredited and approved by Catholic Frenchmen, distinguished 
for learning and talents, as well as by the popular voice of that 
country, is sufficiently shown by the testimony of M. Dupin, to the 
merits of this book and by the number of editions through which it 
lias passed. It is impossible, that the Roman Catholic laity of the 



1838.] Worki of Joieph AidUcn. S57 

United States, should condemn, what the intelligence and experience 
of the best minds in France decidedly approve, or that they should 
deem that, to be trivial, which, su<^h men as the advocate general 
T\gdon, M. Dupin, M. Daunou and many others not less distinguished, 
have considered of the utmost importance to the social and political 
interests of their country." 

6. — The Elements of Political Economy* Abridged for the use of 
Academies, ny Francis Waylandy B, D. President ofBrovm 
University^ and Professor of Intellectual and Moral PhiloS' 
ophy, Boston : Gould, Kendall dc Lincoln, 1837. pp. 254. 

Our opinion of the original work of Dr. Wayland, from which the 
above has been abridged, was expressed in a former No. of the Re- 
pository, Vol. X. p. S39 seq. Tlie author has now accomplished 
what we then suggested as highly desirable. He has so condensed 
and abridged bis original work as to furnish an admirable text book 
for the use of academies and higher seminaries. We are glad to 
see this Abridgement before the public, and cordially recommend it 

6.-— Prtttctpfe* of Interpreting the Prophecies; briefly {Uusirated 
and applted. With JNoies. By Henry Jones. New York 
and Andover : Gould & Newman, 1637. pp. 150. 

The principles formally stated in this book are twenty four. In 
excogitating and arran^ng these principles the author seems to have 
confined himself principsilly to the study of the English Bible with* 
out recourse to the more extended investigations of others. The 
work is original and appears to have been the result of much study. 
Some of the principles here illustrated are not as weU guarded as 
they might have been by more extensive learning, and some of them, 
we think, are not fully sustained. Yet the author has succeeded in 
stating with clearness some important facts, as ^^ First piinciples of 
the oracles of God," which, as he remarks in his Introduction, " have 
heretofore been, and are still too much overlooked in the study of the 
prophecies." These principles are " easy to be understood and ap- 
plied even by the unlearned," and may be safely submitted to every 
class of readers. 

7. — The Works of Joseph Addison^ complete in Three Volumes, 
Embracing the whole of the " Spectalor^'* etc. New York : 
Harper and Brotheis, 1837. pp. 456, 459, 535. 

The Works of Addison have acquired a reputation which needs 
not the aid of the periodical press to sustain it. They are among 
the richest treasures of English literature, and will not cease to be 
admired so long as the elegancies of the English language shall be 

Vol. XI. No. 29. 33 



258 Critical No(iee$. [Jam. 

cultivated. The publishers of these works have done honor to the 
literary taste and refinement of our country by presuming on the 
sale of a large edition of these volumes. Thev have also done honor to 
themselves by the convenient and elegant form hi which they have 
prepared and executed the work. Their own '* Advertisement'* 
prefixed to the first volume, which we subjoin, expresses ail that we 
need to say in commendins this edition to our readers, viz : 

'^ In presenting to the American public this new edition of the 
writings of Joseph Addison, the publishers hold it altogether super- 
fiuous and unnecessary to say any thing in commendation of the 
works themselves, or make any reference to the established and in- 
creasing celebrity of the author. That celebrity has been delibe- 
rately conferred by a succession of generations, and the name of Ad- 
dison is permanently enrolled among the brightest that adorn the 
Augustan age of English literature. A few words, however, of 
comment upon the peculiar advantages of this edition may be per- 
mitted, it is hoped, if on no other ground, at least as showing the 
anxiety of the publishers to provide the community with the best 
which they can obtain, and the most suited to gratify the wants and 
wishes of every reader. 

The superiority of this edition over any heretofore published in 
this country, or, indeed in England, consists in its convenience of 
form, its k>w price, its accuracy, its neatness of mechanical execu- 
tion, and above all, its completeness. It comprises not only all the 
essays, letters, poems, criticisms, tales, descriptions and dramatic works 
of Addison, hut also the whole of the Spectator ; this last being a new 
and very useful arrangement, inasmuch as many of the finest essays^ 
narratives and characters in that admirable series were contributed 
jointly by Addison and others. The delightful character of Sir Rog- 
er de Coverley, for instance, was frequently taken up by Steele, 
Budgell, and several others of the contributors who were quite as of\en 
employed in the beautiful papers relating to " the club" as was Ad- 
dison himself. It is evident that, by separating those of the latter from 
the others, as has been done in former editions of his works, the 
continuity of the story is destroyed and the pleasure of the reader 
materially diminished. In this point of view alone the edition now 
offered must be considered vastly preferable. 

Care has been taken, nevertheless, to designate not only the pa- 
pers contributed by Addison, but also those furnished by each of 
the other writers ; and in all other respects the edition of the Spec- 
tator comprised within these volumes is as complete and perfect as 
any ever published. The publishers have only to add the expres- 
sion of their hope, that the favor of the public to this undertaking 
may be such as shall encourage them to the production of other 
English classics in a corresponding style of excellence, literary and 
mechanical." 



1888.] Religious Dissensions, 259 

8. — T%e Young Disciple; or^ A Memoir of Anzonetta R. Peters. 
By Rev. John A. Chtrk^ Rector Sf St, Andrev^s Churchy 
PhUadOpMa. Author of'*' The Pastor's Testimony,^' ''Walk 
about Zion^^ " Gathered PragmentSy'* etc, Philadelphia : 
William Marshall & Co. 1837. pp. 328. 

The subject of this Memoir departed this life in the city of New 
York in the autumn of 1833, aged about eighteen years. She was 
a member of the Episcopal church, and her piety, to use the lan- 
guage of her biographer, " was of the brightest and holiest stamp." 
She was a grand-daughter of the Rev. Christopher Godfrey Peters, 
pastor of the Moravian church in the city of New York, who died 
m 1797, and cousin of Caroline Elizabeth Smelt, the history of whose 
wonderful conversion and dying testimony has done much to exalt 
the riches of free grace and win souls to Christ, — has been exten- 
sively read in this country, has passed through several editions in 
England, has been translated into the German, and is exerting its 
silent but elective influence in many countries. The memoir of 
Miss Peters is less striking and wonderful, but the spirit which per- 
vades it is equally attractive, and its narrative equally suited to iu* 
struct and benefit the reader. It is well written and worthy of ex* 
tensive circulation. 

9. — Religious Dissensions : Their Cause and Cure, A Prize Es' 
say. By Pharcellus Churchy Author of " Philosophy of B^ 
nevolence,'* New York : Gould & Newman. Amherst : J. 
S. dc C. A<Jams. Boston : Crocker & Brewster, Gould, Ken- 
dall & Lincoln. Hartford : Canfield & Robbins. Rochester : 
H. Stanwood & Co. 1838. pp. 400. 

The manner in which this work has been brought before the pub- 
lic furnishes presumptive evidence of its substantial excellence. A 
premium of #200 was ofiered for the best Tract or Treatise on Dis- 
sensions in the churches. From twenty-seven manuscripts, several 
of which, the committee say, were written with much ability and in 
an excellent spirit, they selected this for the premium. 

On the announcement of this award we were happy to learn that 
it had fallen to the name of the Rev. Pharcellus Church. We have 
known this author only through his previous work entitled ** The 
Philosophy of Benevolence,'* which we regard as one of the best books 
which has been issued from the American press. A distinguished 
clergyman, and a stranger to the author remarked to us, soon after 
its publication, that it was one of the few books which, having begun, 
he felt impelled to read entirely through. We have not yet liad 
time to follow this example in our perusal of the '' Prize Essay,'' 
but from the portions which we have read, our impression is tfiat 
the author has fully equalled himself, in his former work. We in- 



960 Critical Notices. [Jah. 

tend to read it through, and Providence permittiiig, to ezpresB our 
views more at large on the important and delicate subjects of which 
it treats in a future Number of the Repository. — In the mean time 
we commend this interesting and very seasonable publication to the 
diligent and devout use of the ministers and members of our 
churches of different names, whom the Saviour prays and commands 
to be ONE. 

10. — A New T^anslalion of the Hehreio Prophets, arranged in 
chronological order. By George R. Noyes. Vol, III., con' 
taxfdng Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, Jonah and Mai- 
achi. Boston : James Munroe & Co. 1837. pp. 2d4. 

Mr. Noyes has now accomplished a translation of all the prophet- 
ical books of the Scriptures. He has persevered with most praise- 
worthy dili^nce, though, we regret to say, that but limited support 
has been yielded to his works. Much benefit in the way of under- 
standing some of the most difficult portions of the Scriptures can be 
derived by all classes of readers in an examination of these transla- 
tions. They embody some of the results of the most recent 
investigations which have been made in Germany in the Hebrew 
Scriptures. The notes are very brief. We are sorry that some 
things are to be found in them which show that Mr. Noyes has 
a very low opinion of the inspiration of the Bible, and which will 
preclude a large class of readers from obtaining much instruction 
from what is really valuable. Read the following : " Respecting 
the comparative merits of Ezekiel as a writer, there has been a con- 
siderable diversity of opinion, as may be seen in the remarks of 
bishop Lowth upon this prophet, in his Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, 
and the note of Michaelis. To me the judgment of Michaelis ap- 
pears in this instance to be more correct than that of Lowth. Un- 
doubtedly there are to be found in Ezekiel some striking passages, 
such as the vision of the dry bones, some ^at thoughts, such as that 
in 36: 26, and many bold images. But m general he wearies the 
reader by endless amplification and frequent repetition, and some- 
times disgusts by his minuteness of detail in the delineation of gross 
images. One illustration, which Isaiah has despatched in a smgle 
▼eise, or a single expression. Is. 1: 21, Ezekiel has spun out into 
whole chapters, so as to lead us to wonder at the state of society, 
when such things would not be offensive to the taste of a writer of 
genius and his contemporary readers. See ch. xvi. and xxiii. His 
visions and allegories sometimes dazzle and confound rather than 
impress and instruct us, though it may be said that his contempora- 
ries may have attached a meaning to them, where we cannot. Yet 
he was himself so sensible of the obscurity of some of his emblems 
and alleffories, that he gives a verbal explanation of them. Some of 
bis embfems are forced and unnatural^ and there occurs occasionally 



1838.] A Alother's Reque$t. 961 

sometbin^ ludicrous in their want of appropriateness, as when he 
takes an iron pan, and lays siege to it, as the emblem of enemies 
besieging the wall oi a city. His language is generally prosaic, 
prolix, and without strength. There may appear to some riders a 
want of reverence in thus speaking of the style of the prophet ; but 
since^the time of bishop Lowth the style of the sacred writers has 
been regarded as their own, and made the subject of criticism, and 
in my opinion great injury is done to the just claims of the sacred 
writers by extravagant and indiscriminate eulogy.'^ Such things re- 
quire no comment Far distant be the time when our theologians 
shall, learn to think and write so irreverently of men who spcdce as 
they were moved by the Holy Ghost ! Mr. Noyes's views of the 
prophecies of Ae Old Testament in relation to the Messiah accord 
with those held by many in Germany, but which we hope will never 
have currency among us. 

10. — The Family Preacher; or^ Domestic Duties illustrated and 
enforced in Eight Discourses. By Rev, Rufus William 
Bailey^ of South Carolina. New York : John S. Taylor, 
1837. pp. 158. 

The subjects discussed in this volume are the ^^ duties of hus- 
bands,-— of wives, — of females,— of parents, — of children, — of mas- 
ters,-— of servants.^' The sermons are short, and written in a finished 
and flowing style, which is at the same time simple and intelligible. 
They are of a highly practical character and well adapted to family 
roacUng. 

11. — A Mother'* s Request, Answered in Letters of a Father to his 
Daughters. Philadelphia : Joseph Whetham, 1837. pp. 264. 

This little volume is neatly finished in all respects, and is credita- 
ble both to the author and the publisher. Though published anony- 
mously, it is from the pen of the Rev. R. W. Bailey of South Caro- 
lina, the author of the ^^ Family Preacher,^' which we have noticed 
in a preceding paragraph. The preparation of these letters was the 
result of one of those mysterious providences, of not unfrequent oc- 
currence, by which the mother of a young and dependent family is 
removed by death. This affliction in the present instance was 
attended with circumstances of thrilliDg interest, and the " Mother^s 
Request,^^ previous to her departure to a better world served to im- 
press upon her surviving husband a still deeper sense of his parental 
responsibilities. Thus urged by a sacred regard to the wishes of his 
departed companion, on tide one hand, and by the tenderest sympa- 
thies on the other, he has given expression to his parental solicitude 
in a series of excellent counsels, contained in forty-three letters ta 
his daughters. The topics appear to be judicbusly selected, and 
the sentiments of the book are conceived in a subdued and chastened 



262 Literary and MUctU. Intelligence. [J ah. 

spirit, are ezpieased with elegance and neatnesB, and breathe the tone 
of piety throughout It is worthy of an extensiYe circulation, and 
cannot fail to be read with profit by the sons and daugbtm of 
affliction. 



ARTICLE XIII. 
Select Literary and Miscellaneous Intelligence. 



UNITED STATES. 



We have received the first sheets of Prof. Bushes Exposition of 
the books of Joshua and Judges. His main object is to afibrd facili* 
ties for the correct understanding of the sacred text — ^to aid the stu- 
dent of the Bible to ascertain with exactness the genuine sense of 
the original. Though the general aspect of the bc^k is critical, yet 
practical remarks have been inserted to such an extent as to adapt 
it happily to popular use. One of the excellencies of the author's 
commentaries on the Scriptures is that he j^pples with the really 
difficult passages, instead of adroitly passmg them over, as some 
commentators do, with a cursory practical remark. We are dad 
to learn, that it is Prof Bush's purpose to go over all the histoncal 
books of the Old Testament on the same plan. The book of Grene* 
sis is already in a considerable state of forwardness. 

The first part of Prof Nordheimer's Critical Grammar of the 
Hebrew Language has come to hand. It is printed at New Haven 
by B. L. Hamlen, and apparently with great accuracy. The paper 
is good and the whole appearance is neat and prepossessing. The 
work will be completed in two volumes, of about 900 pages each. 
The first volume, (the first part of which of 120 pages is now pub- 
lished,) will contain the whole of the Granunar as &r as the Syntax ; 
the second will contain the Syntax, and a grammatical analysis of 
select portions of the Scriptures, of progressive difficulty, including 
those portions usually read in the principal institutions of this coun- 
try. The whole will be published in the course of the present year. 
Tlie price of the two volumes will probably be about six dollars. 

A small volume has just been published by Gould 6c Newman, 
entitled, '^ Thoughts on a New Order of Missionaries.*' We have 
not read the volume, and cannot speak of its merits. It does not 
propose to interfere at all, as we understand, with existing missionary 
organizaficHis, but advocates the adoption of means for sending out 
pious physicians into all portions of the heathen world. The sub- 
ject is important, and we have no doubt die boc^ will attract attentioii. 



1838.] Lkerary and MUcell. htelSgenee. 963 

We have leoeived a short oommanlcation from a ^* Friend of 
Truth and Justice,'* requestipff us to correct a remark which we 
made in our introductory article in January, 1837, in relation to the 
British Socie^" for Promoting Christian Knowledge. We there stated 
that at the time when this Society was publishing the Bible in two 
languages, the British and Foreign Bible Society were publishing it 
in 150. Our correspondent suggests that the former society does 
not, like the latter, hmit its operations to one department of efibrt 
but that its labors embrace schools, missions, distribution of the Bi- 
ble, and other books, translation of the Bible, lending libraries, and 
the relief of temporal necessities. Our correspondent also suggests 
that the former Society had accomplished a^reat amount of good 
before the rise of the Bible Society in 1804. m 1711, the ChristiaB 
Knowledge Society had given instruction to nearly 5000 children ; 
in 1761, it had established upwards of 1400 schools, in which 
were 40,000 children, in England and Wales, besides similar schools 
in Scotland and Ireland, ami had in 1764, planted a number of 
misskms, etc. We have only to say, in justification of ourselves, that 
the facts in our article were taken from Mr. Choules^s Origin and 
History of Missions, that taking all the labors of the Christian Knowl- 
edge Society in view, at any one time, since the Bible Society was 
formed, it has exhibited much less energy than the latter, and that 
what energy it has possessed, has been apparently much augmented 
by the establishment of the Bible Society. These were the positions 
taken in our article, and we think the facts will warrant them, not- 
withstanding the sugoestions of our correspondent 

A new ecution of ProL Stuart^s Hebrew Chrestomathy and also of 
his Grammar of the New Testament Dialect will be published dur* 
ing the present year. 

We observe that the Rev. Dr. Adams, president of the college oi 
Qiarieston, S. C. has published a new work on Moral Philosophy. 
We hope to be able to give it an extensive review hereafter. 

Prof. Hitchcock of Amherst College has published De La Beche^s 
excellent Manual of Gedogy, with euiditional notes and illustrations* 

PERSIA. 

We have just received the following items of informatioii from Mr* 
Perkins of Ooroomiah. ^ You inquire respecting European travel- 
lers, now in these regions. I know of but few. Monsieur Auchet Eloy^ 
a French botanist recently travelled through Persia and the adjacent 
regions. He had gathered a large and very valuable collection of botan- 
ical specimens, and had reached Constantinople on his return ; but in 
that city of conflagrations, his lodgings took fire, and his collection 
of phtnts and flowers — the fruits of almost endless tcHl-^were alt. 
consumed in the flames. I think he will repeat his botanic excur* 



964 Uteranf and MUceU. hieUigencs. 

sioDs, in these regi<HiB9 as I believe it was his intentioQ to publish. 
Mr. William Hamilton — a youns English gentleman, has recently 
travelled in Asia Minor, and, I believe, to some extent, also, in 
Mesopotamia. He is a very able young man, and it is under- 
stood that he will publish the result of his travels. James Brant, Esq., 
His Britannic Majesty's consul at Erzroom, has travelled exten- 
sively in Asia Minor, and an interesting article from his pen, on the 
regions over which he has travelled, together with a map of the 
same, recently appeared in a periodical magazine of the fioyal 
Greographical Society, published at London. I was kindly enter- 
tained by Mr. Brant, during my late visit at Erzroom, and he men- 
tioned to me his intention of soon making a tour into KiCtrdistan, the 
result of which he will doubtless be able to ^ve to Christendom im- 
portant information, respecting regions, which have never yet been 
visited by a European. The English embassy, in this country, are, 
at present, doing little of a literary nature. Its members are too 
fully occupied in political matters, to allow them the necessary time. 
Mr. Mc Neill, the ambassador, is a man of very high literary stand- 
ing. Many interesting and able articles, from him, have, within a 
few years, appeared iu Blackwood's Magazine. All the articles on 
Persia, that have been published in that work, are from his pen. 
The lithographic press, which was formerly at Tabreez, is now at 
Teheran, employed in publishing a periodical newspaper, under 
the auspices of the king. This is the first newspaper ever published 
in Persia — four numbers have been issued — and, though it is a small 
thing in itself, it is a day-star of glory for the civil regeneration of 
this country. It is edited by a Persian Meerza, who was once am- 
bassador to England, — who speaks the English language — and is 
ardently desirous to see the light and civilizaticm of Europe intro- 
duced into Persia. And as this light roUs in, how important is it, 
that the gospel should come with it, and eive it the right direction ! 
We have nothing new, respecting Mount Ararat On my kite jour- 
ney to ErKroom, I again passed along its base ; and I never felt so 
strong a desire to ascend it as in this instance. The earliness of the 
season, however, forbade the attempt The snow extended down, 
at that time, (May,) almost to its base. But I have no doubt that it 
may be ascended, on the north-west side, which is by far the least 
steep, with the aid of proper facilities and preparations, and at the 
right season of the year. In August and September the snow covers 
not more than one third of the mountain. The region west and 
south-west of Ararat presents striking indications df having felt the 
effects of former volcanic action. For a distance of mleen or 
twenty miles the surface of the ground is almost entirely covered 
with stones, each weighing from five to ten or fifleen pounds, which 
give indubitable evidence of having been in a stale of partial fusion.^' 



TBI 



AMERICAN 



BIBLICAL REPOSITORY. 



Ho. XXX. 



APRIL, 1888. 



ARTICLE I. 

» 

Thc Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, by 
Andrews Norton. Vol. L Boston^ 1837. 

Eeviewed by M. SliMut, Prof. Sko. Lit. in the Tbeol. Seminary, AndoTW. 

The volume, which bears the title given above, is certainly 
a production of no ordinary stamp, and is a phenomenon in our 
literary hemisphere which ought to excite much interest. Our 
country has hitherto been very sparing of contributions to the 
stock of sacred literature ; at least of such as are the fruit of 
long and intense study, and the result of a widely extended 
knowledge of antiquities either sacred or profane. We have 
so few men who can afford to bury themselves for a long time 
in the closets of libraries, and so few libraries that have closets 
well stocked with books ; wTtbal we are so intent upon the 
practical business of life-— on making our fortunes, or building 
up a mere temporary and popular fame, or grasping at office — 
that we grow impatient under protracted years of effort in the 
acquisition of individual knowledge, and seldom endeavour to 
accomplish what the riper scholars of Europe are every day 
labounng to accomplish. And what is very discouraging to the 
few, who can surmount the usual obstacles, resist all tempta- 
tions to acquire a mere short-lived celebrity, and consent to 
plough and sow with the certain apprehension that they must 

Vol. XL No. 30. 34 



266 Genuineness of the Gospels. [Apbil 

wait for the harvest until some future period which may Dot ar- 
rive before it is too late for them to witness its gathering in — 
what indeed has hitherto almost paralyzed every attempt among 
us at long protracted and severe literary effort, is, that when 
any thing of this nature has been executed, it has rarely if ever 
met with such success as to encourage new adventurei's in the 
same or the like undertakings. If a book does not either en- 
tertain the mass of our public, or show them how to become 
richer or more thrifty in their business, or is not indispensable 
as a professional work, the publishers may regard themselves 
as unusually fortunate, in case they get off without solid loss 
from an edition of 750 or at most 1000 copies. This is true of 
almost any thoroughly literary work which can be named. 

It were easy to support these allegations by appeal to par- 
ticular facts ; but the detail of them would be an ungrateful 
labour, and lead me, moreover, quite away from the execution 
of the more pleasant task which i have now undertaken to per- 
form. If any reader is so sensitive to the honour of the litera- 
ry character of those who dwell this side of the Atlantic, as to 
look with suspicion on such statements as I have made, and to 
call them in question, let him make trial at the of&ce of even 
the most intelligent and liberal of our publishers, and see what 
the result of his inquiries about the publication of a work of 
deep and recondite literature will be. Nor can he justly blame 
the publishers. How can they affi)rd to print what the Amer- 
ican public will not patronize ? And how can they be respon- 
sible for the pursuits and the taste of all their countrymen ? 

Mr. Norton is one of the very few among us, who are pla- 
ced in circumstances of literary ease and comfort. Not c-on- 
strained to pursue the daily duties of an office, which he once 
held in the University of Cambridge, in order to provide for 
himself and his family, he seems to have relinquished them for 
the sake of a higher object — ^to devote himself without reserve 
to the pursuit of sacred literature in some of its most interesting 
and important branches. The work before us is the fruit of the 
leisure thus secured ; and surely it bears testimony that this lei- 
sure-time has been very busily employed. 

The author telb us, in his preface, that he began this work 
in 1819, and that he was then ' so much in error respecting the 
inquiries to which it would lead him, that he believed it might 
be accomplished in six months.' Every tyro in literature who 
afterwards makes any considerable advances, can at a later day 



1838.] CtenuineneiM of the Oospeb, 967 

sympathize with such a feeling as this. He remembers the 
time, when he wondered that such men as have taken the lead 
in sacred literature or theology, should have occupied so many 
years in doing what seemed to him to be feasible in the course 
of a few weeks, or at most of a few months. How often is the 
diligent scholar reminded, that the mount of science is like that 
of natural vision ; the higher you ascend, the wider the pros- 
pect is extended. Even when we reach the summit, it is only 
to see that the prospect is boundless in every direction. 

Mr. Norton, it seems, has been busied some eighteen years 
with his undertaking, instead of six months ; although this is 
not to be understood of his first volume only which is now pub- 
lished, hut also of two more which are yet to appear. The pub- 
lic cannot complain of the author, by alleging in this case that 
he is hasty in his performance, seeing that the ^^ nonum pre- 
matur in annum" has been doubled in the present instance But 
the book m question gives evidence enough that it has not been 
lying idly by, during the greater part of these eighteen years. 
The investigations which it developes could never have been 
made without much time and severe labour. 

It seems to have been the general persuasion of the English 
and American public, since the publication of the great work of 
Lardner on the Evidences of Christianity, and that of Paley, 
that little or nothing more remained to be done, in regard to 
the literary and archaeological part of this undertaking. Lard- 
ner seemed to have exhausted all the store houses of ancient 
Jewish, Heathen, or Christian testimonies to the existence and 
genuineness of the New Testament books ; and Paley, who has 
added little indeed to the archaeological part of this undertaking, 
has thrown the whole substance into such a compact, tangiUe, 
intelligible form, employed such skill and address in his reason- 
ing, and so admirably adapted the whole to popular ends, at 
least for the instruction of the greater part of the well-informed 
community, that there did not seem to be any call for further 
efhxt in regard to this part of Christian Apologetics. In addi- 
tion to this it should also be remarked, that within the last half 
century very few infidel works have appeared in the English 
language, which had any claim to literary pretensions, or which 
needed any refutation from a knowledge of antiquity. They 
have been little else than a repetition of the stale criticisms and 
ieers of Voltaire, La Mettrie, Paine, and a few others of the 
like class ; and whatever show of argument has been exhibited, 



268 Genuineness of the Oospeb. [April 

it has been mostly of the a priori kind, either assuming that 
the attributes of God are utterly inconsistent with the doctrines 
and narratives of the Bible, or else that we are equally desti- 
tute of evidence both in respect to the being and attributes of 
God and the truth of the Scriptures. 

After all the learning and ability, however, that Lardner and 
Paley have shewn in England in relation to the subject before 
us, or Schmidt, Kleuker, or Less have exhibited on the Conti- 
nent of Europe, there has sprung up, within the last generation, 
a new reason for further effort, such as Mr. Norton has made. 
Novus sedArum incipit ordo ; but in a very different sense, no 
doubt, from that which the poet meant to convey. Semler, 
Eckermann, Eichhorn, Paulus, Gabler, Henke, and many others 
of the like stamp, in Germany, have, in one way and another, 
assailed the general and settled belief of the Christian church at 
large, in respect to the genuineness and authenticity of the New 
Testament Scriptures, from quarters that were unexpected, and 
in a manner which for a while was perplexing and somewhat 
disheartening to the most strenuous defenders of the older and 
long established sentiments of Christians in general. 

Neology in Germany has indeed liad, for a while, apparently 
a prosperous run and propitious gales. The time was, and for 
more than one decemium too, when there was not more than 
one solitary magazine in all Germany, of any great literary pre- 
tensions, which maintained both the genuineness and the authen- 
ticity of the sacred books. This was the highly respectable 
Magazin of Storr, Flatt, and others, at Tiibingen. Now and 
then a solitary voice was heard, in defence of the Old Testa- 
ment or of the New, like that of Jahn, or in some respects of 
Hug, and of a few writers of smaller treatises. How greatly 
are those times changed ! A predominant party in literature 
are plainly rising up, at present, who believe and maintain for 
substance the long established doctrines of the Christian church- 
es in relation to these topics. Another day, I iully believe a bet- 
ter one, is dawning once more on the churches of the Conti- 
nent. 

Widely difiused as German literature is beginning to be in 
this country and in England, it is unwise, indeed it is impossi- 
ble, for us to remain idle spectators of the great contest which 
has been and still is going on. If those who believe in and wish 
to defend either the genuineness, or the authenticity, or botli, 
of the Old Testament and the New, choose to slumber on their 



1838.] Genuineness of the Oospels. 269 

post, and let neological views have their course without any ef- 
fort to eheck or regulate them, they may be assured that in the 
end this country will see a revolution not unlike, in many re- 
spects, to that in Germany. There is no small part of our 
community, after all that we say and may justly say about the 
prevalence of Christian faith among us, who would be glad of 
an opportunity feirly to escape from the obligation which the 
Bible imposes upon their consciences. They have been so 
educated, however, that they cannot do this by embracing at 
once, and in their revolting and blasphemous forms, the senti- 
ments of a Paine, a Godwin, a Taylor (of London), or of a 
much more insignificant class still — an Owen, a Fanny Wright, 
or an Abner Kneeland. The gulf is too wide, deep, and foul, 
to be inviting to them. But if some writer like Eichhorn should 
rise up among us, who to all the charms of genius and taste 
should add a widely diffused knowledge of classical and sacred 
learning, and who should attack the genuineness of the sacred 
writings on grounds of archaeological history and criticism ; in a 
word, if any one should by his talents and learning contribute to 
make the cause of skepticism respectable among the well in- 
formed classes of society ; I doubt not that sooner or later we 
should have a large neological party in our country. I ask ev- 
ery sober and enlightened man, who is well acquainted with 
the state of feeling among men of the world, whether irreligion, 
or skepticism, if once made respectable by an appearance of 
learned investigation and great talents, would not be gratefully 
accepted by many, in order to get rid of the burden that now 
lies on their consciences, in consequence of their education, or- 
of the influence of the circles of friends in which they now 
move. 

For my own part, I cannot doubt of this. Of course I can- 
not doubt the expediency of preparing for the great contest 
which must ensue, if once the views of Neologists shall become 
current among us. I would not anticipate these, and difiuse- 
them prematurely. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. 
It is not good policy, rather, I would say, it is not sound pru- 
dence, to fill the ears of the community with reports of dan- 
ger coming upon the cause of truth, which is new, unexpected^ 
and of a highly threatening character. A general need not pro- 
claim in glowing language to his army, on the eve of contest, 
the terrible power of the enemy with whom they are to com- 
bat, and thus send them into the field half-conqueved before the 



S70 Genuineness of the Gotpeb. [Ap&u* 

onset of battle. But on the other hand, he may easily cany 
his discretion in this respect a great deal too far. If the enemy 
^hom the general is to meet are furnished with a new sort of 
«rms, have acquired some new military tactics which are for- 
midable, or posted themselves on vantage ground unknown to 
his own army, then be would be rash indeed not to inform his 
soldiers of all this, and not to instruct them how they are to cope 
with and overcome these new or formidable means of attack or 
resistance. 

Such, in some respects, I deem the situation of our commu- 
nity to be. The progress of German literature, and of that 
part of it which is neohgtcal^ cannot now be prevented. If it 
is impeded here and there, it will burst out in other places. 
There are among us literary men enough, and men rather in- 
clined to skepticism, to think and act for themselves in the 
choice and purchase of books. There are learning and talent 
enough displayed in many — very many — of the German neologi- 
cal works, to excite curiosity highly, and at least to command 
literary respect. It is not within the power, then, of the sober, 
believing, religious part of the community, to put a stop to the 
reading and diffiision of such works. And this being most plain- 
ly the state of the case, I think we have no way left but to pre- 
pare for the worst, and to take the vantage ground if we can in 
the contest, by shewing those who would attack the cause of 
settled belief in the Scriptures, that neither their attacks are un- 
provided for by us, nor their weapons or tactics unknown to us. 

Let us not dream of a black listy an index eoopurgaiorius, 
of books, in this free country and Protestant land, from access 
to which our youth or others are prohibited. Some parents 
have tried the experiment of shutting up their children from all 
intercourse with others, in order to keep them from being con- 
taminated. The result has nearly always been, that when they 
did go out at last into the world, being strangers in point of ex- 
perience to all its temptations and allurements, they fell an easy 
prey to them, and were undone for life. So in the case before 
us ; particularly, I would say, in regard to young men who are 
now in a course of education for the ministry. If we keep them, 
either in Seminaries or under private tuition, from all acquaint- 
ance with what neology has done or is now doing in respect to 
the Scriptures either of the Old Testament or the New, when 
they go out into the world they will meet with those who have 
drunk in the new doctrines. They will be attacked by them ; 



1838.] Genuineness of the Oatpeb. 271 

attacked with the learning and skill which Eichhom and others 
of the like cast have furnished^ ready to their hand ; and they 
will, from the necessity of the case, be shocked and confounded 
by the assault, if not overthrown. Besides this too, many sen- 
sible inquirers among the laity, who have heard conversation 
on topics involved in such a controversy, or read something 
concerning them, will be naturally led to inquire of their pastor 
what all thb means. If he is ignorant of it, or cannot in any 
becoming and satisfactory manner solve their doubts or quiet 
their apprehensions, then their difficulties will be increased^ and 
in all probability will end in a state of skepticism. 

Semper paraiusy then, should be the maxim of the young 
theologian, at a time like this. And if this be so, then I would 
ask, whether there- is any way so good, for those who direct 
the studies of young men that are candidates for the ministry, 
as prudently and cautiously to make known to them the sub- 
stance of neological doctrine, whether critical or theological, and 
instruct them how to answer the objections which it raises. 
What ! Shall we spend weeks and months in combating the 
infidels and skeptics of early ages or of past generations ; must 
Hume and Collins and Shaftsbury and Tolland and Tindal be 
met and refuted, at all points and with great care, although they 
have mostly argued on grounds that are merely a priori^ and 
shall the far more powerful and subtle skeptics of the present 
day, whose appeal is professedly to antiquity and criticism, be 
passed by in silence, or studiously excluded from the circle of 
our consideration ? Believe this who may, I cannot accede to 
It. Every age has its own peculianties, its own dangers, its 
own corruptions, and its own weapons of assault upon the Scrip- 
tures. It is not meet that we should live so much out of the 
age to which we belong, and be conversant only with times that 
are forever gone by. 

I have made these remarks in order to show, that the work 
of Mr. Norton is not in any measure to be deemed superfluous, 
because we have the works of Lardner, Paley, and others of a 
similar character in English, or the works of Schmidt, Less, 
Kleuker, etc., in German and Latin. Mr. Norton has, in the 
Preface to his work, given us reasons why he entered de novo 
upon the investigations which led to it — reasons which I think 
ought to satisfy every one who is acquainted with the present 
state of sacred criticism and literature. 

In order that the readers of this Periodical may obtain some 



973 Oenuineness of the Gospdi. [ AmL 

definite view of the positions which have been taken by leading 
Neologists in respect to the genuineness of the Gospels, it is 
proper that some extracts from Eichhom's Introduction to the 
New Testament should here be presented. Complaint cannot 
be made that this class of writers are unfairly dealt with in our 
statements respecting them, when they are left to speak for them- 
selves. I cannot do better here, than to introduce an extract 
from Mr. Norton's introductory Statement of the Ccue, viz. of 
the matter in dispute, or the subject which he has undertaken 
to discuss. The passages with double commas at the beginning 
and end are translations by him from Eichhom ; the remabder 
consists of his own remarks, intermixed for the sake of illustration 
and in order to secure accuracy of statement. 

^^ Justin Martyr,^^ says Eichhom, ^ who was bom A. D. 89, and 
died A. D. 163, a Samaritan, a native of Flavia Neapolis, early be- 
came converted from a heathen philosopher to a zealous Christian, 
and was one of the earliest Christian writers. He nowhere quotes 
the life and sayings of Jesus according to our present four Gospels, 
which he was not acquainted with. This is a very important cir- 
cumstance in regard to the history of the Gospels ; as he bad devo- 
ted many years to travel, and resided a long time in Italy and Asia 
Minor." 

On the whole, it is concluded by Eichhom and others, that our 
four Gospels, in their present form^ were not in use, and were not 
known, till the end of the second century. Previously to that time, 
it is supposed, that other gospels were in circulation, allied to those 
which we possess, but not the same. '^ If we will not,*^ says Eich- 
bom, *^ be influenced by mere assertions and unsupported tradidon, 
but by the only sure evidence of history, we must conclude that be- 
fore our present Gospels, other decidedly different gospels were in 
circulation, and were used during the first two centunes in the in- 
struction of Christians.^^ Eichhom, however, does not deny that 
the canonical Gospels are, in a certain sense^ the works of the au- 
•thons to whom they have been ascribed. He expressly defends the 
jgenuineness of that of John ; and with regard to the three others, he 
says : ^^ According to the uniform tradition of the Church, the first 
three Gospels proceeded from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This 
tradition is not to be called in question, unless therc arc strong rea- 
sons against it ; and where arc such reasons to be found ?^' He con- 
lends, however, that the Gospels have been grossly corrupted. His 
statements respecting this subject arc connected with his account of 
Jthe supposed common ori^n of the first three of our present Gos- 
f)els, and of the gospels which he believes to have been in use before 
those we flow possess. This account is as follows : 



1888.] Genuineness of the Oospels. 273 

There was very early m ejristence a short historical sketch of the 
life of Christ, which may be called the Original Gospel. This was, 
probably, provided for the use of those assistants of the apostles in 
the work of teaching Christianity, who had not themselves seen the 
actions and heard the discourses of Christ. It was however but * a 
rough sketch, a brief and imperfect account, without historical plan 
or methodical arrangement.' In this respect it was, according to 
Eichhom, very different from our four Grospels. " These present 
no rough sketch, such as we must suppose the first essay upon the 
life of Jesus to have been ; but, on the contranr, are works written 
with art and labor, and contain portions of his life, of which no men- 
tion was made in the first preaching of Christianity." This Original 
Ooepel was the basis both of the earlier gospels used during the first 
two centuries, and of the first three of our present Gospels, "namely, 
those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, by which those earlier gospels 
were finally superseded. The earlier gospels retained more or less 
of the rudeness and incompleteness of the Original Gospel. 

'^ But they very soon fell into the hands of those who undertook 
to supply their defects and incompleteness, both in the general com- 
pass of the histoiy, and in the narration of particular events. Not 
content with a life of Jesus, which, like the gospel of the Hebrews, 
and those of Marcion and Tatian, commenced with his public ap- 
pearance, there were those who early prefixed to the Memoirs used 
by Justin Martyr, and to the gospel of Cerinthus, an account of his 
descent, his birth, and the period of his youth. In like manner, wo 
find, upon comparing together, in parallel passages, the remaining 
fragments of these gospels, that they were receiving continual ac- 
cessions. The voice from heaven at the baptism of Jesus, was ori- 
ginally stated to have been : Thou art my Son ; this day have I be- 
gotten thee ; as it is quoted by Justin Martyr in two places. Cle- 
ment of Alexandria found the same, in a gospel of which we have 
no particular description, with the addition of the word, ' beloved' : 
Thou art my beloved son ; this day have I begotten thee. Other 
gospels represented the voice as having been : Thou art my beloved 
S(m, toith whom I am well pleased ; as it is given in the catholic 
Gospels, namely, in Mark 1: 11. In the gospel of the Ebionites, 
according to Epiphanius, both accounts of the voice from heaven 
were united : Thou art my beloved son^ xcith whom I am well pleas- 
ed ; and again ; This day have I begotten thee. By these continual 
accessions, the original text of the life of Jesus was lost in a mass of 
additions, so that its words appeared among them but as insulated 
fragments. Of this any one may satisfy himself from the account 
of the baptism of Jesus, which was compiled out of various gospels. 
The necessary consequence was, that at last truth and falsehood, 
authentic and fabulous narratives, or such, at least, as through long 
tradition had become disfigured and falsified, were brought together 

Vol. XI. No. 30. 35 



S74 Genuineneis of the Gospels, [April 

promiscuously. The longer these narratives passed from mouth to 
mouth, the more uncertain and disfigured they would become. At 
last, at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century, 
in order, as far as might be, to preserve the true accounts concern* 
ing the life of Jesus, and to deliver them to posterity as free from 
error as possible, the jChurch, out of the many gospels which were 
extant, selected four, which had the greatest markiB of credibility, 
and the necessary completeness for common use. There are no 
traces of our present Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, before 
the end of the second and the beginning of the third century. Ire- 
naeus, about the year 202, first speaks decisively of four gospels ; 
and imagines all sorts of reasons for this particular number ; and 
Clement of Alexandria, about the year 216, labored to collect divers 
accounts concerning the origin of these four Gospels, in order to 
prove that these alone should be acknowledged as authentic. From 
these facts, it is evident, that first, about the end of the second and 
the be^nning of the third century, the Church labored to establish 
the universal authority of these four Gospels, which were m exis- 
tence before, if not altogether in their present form, yet in most re- 
spects such as we now have them, and to procure their general re- 
ception in the Church, with the suppression of all other gospels then 
extant 

" Posterity would indeed have been under much greater obliga- 
tions, if, together with the Grospel of John, the Church had establish- 
ed, by pubnc authority, only the first rough sketch of the life of Je- 
sus, which was given to the earliest missionaries to authenticate their 
preaching ; af\er separating it from all its additions and augmenta- 
tions. But this was no longer possible ; for there was no copy ex- 
tant free from all additions, ana the critical operation of separating 
this accessory matter was too difficult for those times.'' 

^' Many ancient writers o[ the church,'' Eichhorn subjoins in a 
note, *'*' doubted the genuineness of megiy parts of our Gospels ; but 
were prevented from coming to a decision by want of critical skill ;" 
pp. 6---13. 

I trust the readers of this Miscellany will not find fault with 
the length of this extract. Many of them, who have often 
beard of German Neology, and no^ and then met with some 
fragments of it here and there introduced and discussed, may 
not have had the opportunity of reading a brief expose written 
by the neological Coryphaeus of the past generation. The ex- 
tracts just made present them with such a view ; and the re- 
marks which are subjoined here and there by Mr. Norton, ex- 
hibit a candid and correct account of the case as it actually 
stands. 

The chief aim of the text or leading part of Mr. Norton's 



1888.] , OemdnenessoftheGaspels, S75 

book, is to examine these positions of Eichhorn in relation to 
the Gospels. In order to do this, be divides his vrork into two 
parts ; in the first of which he endeavours to establish the pro- 
position, that '' the. Gospels remain essentially the same as they 
were originally composed ;" and in the second, that '^ they ha^e 
been ascribed to their true authors J^ 

In proof of his first proposition, he labours, in Chap. I., to 
shew ^^ the agreement of the respective copies of the four Gos- 
pels," i. e. the uniformity or harmony of the same Gospels, 
which exists between all the difi[erent manuscripts or copies of 
them in different ages and countries, or (in other words) the 
uniformity of text which pervades the totality of them at all 
times and in all places. 

In order not to be misunderstood, the author begins by in- 
forming his readers what exceptions are to be made to this gen- 
eral declaration. He does not suppose the present Greek text 
of Matthew to be the original^ but only an early translation of 
the original Hebrew copy which was current in Palestine. Nor 
does be suppose, that no accident has ever befallen any single 
word^ phrase, or verse, of any of the Gospels, but that these 
books have been exposed, like other ancient books, to some er- 
rors and variations introduced by copyists and others throuj^h 
mistake on various grounds aind from a variety of causes. He 
enumerates what he believes to be interpolations ; in which he 
is much more liberal to his opponents, than I, with my present 
views, can possibly persuade myself to be. The two first 
chapters of Matthew, he thinks, did not belong to the original 
Gospel of thb writer ; as also Matt. 27: 3 — 10, eontaining the 
narrative respecting Judas' repentance and suicide ; and Matt. 
27: 52, 53, containing an account of the resurrection of many 
saints and their appearance in Jerusalem after the resurrection 
of the Saviour. Luke 22: 43, 44, which relates that an angel 
appeared and strengthened the Saviour during his agony and 
bloody sweat, is also, in his apprehension, of a suspicious char- 
acter ; and John 21 : 24, 25, (the last part of v. 24 and the 
whole of V. 25) " has the air of an editorial note." Besides 
these, John 3: 3, 4, (the last clause of v. 3 and the whole of 
V. 4), containing the passages respecting angelic influence on the 
waters of the pool at Bethesda, is very questionable ; and John 
8: 3 — 10, containing an account of the woman that was taken 
in the act of adultery and brought to Jesus, is '^justly regarded 
by a majority of modem critics, as not having been a part of the 
original Gospel." 



276 Genmneness of the Gospels, [April 

It is proper that we should hear him speak for himself as to 
the manner in which he supposes these iDteriK)lations to have 
been made. 

The two passages last mentioned, and the other interpolations 
that have been suggested, that is, the two insertions into the body of 
the text of the original Hebrew of Matthew's Gospel, and one into 
that of Luke's Gospel, were, we may suppose, first written as notes 
or additional matter in the margin of some copies of the Gospel in 
which they are found. But passages belonging to the text of a 
work, which had been accidentally omitted by a transcriber, were, 
hkewise, often preserved in the margin. From this circumstance, 
notes and additional matter, thus written, were not unfrequenlly mis- 
taken for parts of the text, and introduced by a subsequent copier 
into what he thought their proper place. This is a fruitful source of 
various readings in ancient wntings ; and may explain how the pas- 
sages in question, if not genmne, have become incorporated with the 
text of the Gospels ; p. 25 seq. 

After these remarks he goes on and endeavours to shew, 
that all these interpolations might have been made in the ordi- 
nary course of things, whhout any design to corrupt the Gospels. 
The veiy fact that spurious passages can be thus distinguished 
from the original, is a pledge, as he intimates, for the integrity 
of the rest ; and at all events, as he more than once intimates 
in other passages, nothing important in regard to Christian doc- 
trine, or duty is lost, in case we exclude the interpolations in 
question. 

On this part of Mr. Norton's treatise I shall take occasion 
hereafter to make some remarks, and particularly to inquire, 
whether it is so clear, as he seems to consider it, that the origi- 
nal Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, and that the 
two first chapters areniade up of extraneous matter, composed 
by another author. For the present therefore 1 dismiss these 
topics, in order to pursue the main object of Mr. Norton's book, 
and to she^w the manner in wliich he has treated his subject. 

The essential aL^reeinent of the Mss. of the Gospels is thus 
briefly and strikingly slated by him. 

There have been examined, in a greater or less degree, about six 
hundred and seventy manuscripts of the whole, or of portions, of the 
Greek text of the Gospels. These were written in difierent coun- 
tries, and at different periods, probably from the fifth century, down- 
wards. They have been found in places widely remote from each 
other, in Asia, in Africa, and from one extremity of Europe to the 
other. Besides those manuscripts of the Greek text, there are many 



1888.] Oemdneness of the Oospels, ^ 277 

manuacripls of ancient versions of the Gospels, in at least eleven 
different languages of the three great divisions of the world just men« 
tioned. There are, likewise, many manuscripts of the works of the 
Christian fathers., abounding in quotations from the Gospels ; and, 
especially, of ancient commentaries on the Gospels, such as those 
of Origen, who lived in the third century, and of Chrysostom, who 
lived in the fourth ; in which we find their text quoted, as the difler- 
ent portions of ii are successively the subjects of remark. 

Now, all these different copies of the Gospels, or parts of the Gos- 
pels, so numerous, so various in their character, so unconnected, of- 
fering themselves to notice in parts of the woild so remote from each 
other, concur in giving us essentially the same text ; p. 28 seq. 

After some explanatory remarks he proceeds thus : 

The agreement amon^ the extant copies of any one of the Gros- 
pels, or of portions of it, is essential ; the disagreements are acci- 
dental and trifling, originating in causes, which, from the nature of 
things, we know must have been in operation. Every copy of any 
one of the Gospels presents us with essentially the same work, the 
same general history, the same particular facts, the same doctrines, 
the same precepts, the same characteristics of the writer, the same 
form of narration, the same style, and the same use of language ; 
and by comparing together difierent copies, we are able to ascertain 
the original text to a great degree of exactness ; or, in other words, 
where various readings occur, to determine what were probably the 
words of the author. The Greek manuscripts^ then, of any one of 
the Gospels, the versions of it, and the quotations from it by the fa- 
thers, are all, professedly, copies of that Gospel or of parts of it ; 
and these copies correspond with each other. But as these profess- 
ed copies thus correspond with each other, it follows that they were 
derived more or less remotely from one archetype. Their agree- 
ment admits of no explanation, except that of their being conformed 
to a common exemplar. In respect to each of the Gospels, the cop- 
ies which we possess must all be referred, for their source, to one 
original Gospel, one original text, one original manuscript. As far 
back as our knowledge extends. Christians, throughout all past ages, 
in Syria, at Alexandria, at Borne, at Carthage, at Constantinople, 
and at Moscow, in the east and in the west, have all used copies of 
each of the Grospeb, which were evidently derived from one origi- 
nal manuscript, and necessarily imply that such a manuscript, ex- 
isting as their archetype, has been faithfully copied ;. p. 29 seq. 

After these just and very apposite remarks, the author goes 
OQ to shew, in a very graphic manner, what an ollapodrida 
the text of the Gospek would have been* — a Mischmasch truly, 
as Bertholdt rashly enough asserts of the Textus Receptiis — 



878 Oemdnenen of the OotptU. [April 

in case the original copies of the Gospels had been dealt with 
in the manner that Eichborn has stated. Well has he said, 
that ^ they would have been as unlike, as the Arabic copies of 
the Arabian Nights' Entertainment, or the Mss. of the Oesta 
Romanorum.* He might have gone still further. From the 
frequency with which they have been copied, and from the na- 
ture of the case where so much of the miraculous is exhibited^ 
they would have been, it is nearly certain, much more discre- 
pant than the copies of those fictions. 

It would be doing injustice to this weighty argument not to 
exhibit the remarks which the author makes upon it. 

The argument which has been employed, seems easy to be com- 
prehended ; and at the same time conclusive of the fact, that all our 
present copies of each of the Gospels are to be traced back to one 
ori^al manuscript, in multiplying the copies of which, no such lib* 
erties can have been taken by transcribers, as are supposed in the 
hypothesis under consideration. The argument seems, likewise, 
very obvious ; yet its force and bearing appear to have been over- 
looked in framing that hypothesis. The fact does not seem to have 
been distinctly adverted to, that the transcriber or possessor of a 
manuscript, making such alterations as the h3rpothesis supposes, 
could introduce them only into a single copy, and into such others 
as mi^ht be transcribed from it ; and that he could not, properly 
speakmg, add to or corrupt the work itself. His copy would have 
no influence upon contemporary copies ; and in the case of the Gos- 
pels, we may say, upon numerous contemporary copies, in whk;h 
the true text might be preserved, or into which mfierent alteratioos 
might be introduced, it is quite otherwise, since the invention of 
printing. He who now introduces a corruption into the printed edi- 
tion of a work, introduces it into all the copies of that edition ; if it 
be the only edition, into all the copies of that work ; and in many 
cases, into a great majority of the copies which are extant, or which 
are most accessible. All these copies will agree in presenting us 
with the same changes or interpolations. He may properly be said 
to corrupt the work itself. .... The power of an ancient copier to 
sJter the text of a work was very different from that of a modem 
editor ; yet it would seem, that they must have been confounded in 
the hypothesis under consideration ; unless some further account is 
to be given of the manner, in which the text of our present Gospek 
has been formed and perpetuated ; p. 33 seq. 

In the Notes which have relation to the integrity and unifor- 
mity of the text of the Gospels, are some very interesting and 
usefiil remarks and illustrations. But I shall nave occasion to 
advert again and separately to them, in the sequel. 



1838.] Gemdnenen of the Oospeb. 87» 

Eichhorn, whose mind could not but be apprehensive of the 
substantial uniformity of the Gospel-text^ the world over, and 
who could not resist the feeling that some plausible account, at 
least, of this extraordinary phenomenon should be given, has 
suggested that in process oi time, i. e. as he thinks, near the 
end of the second and the beginning of the third century, * the 
Churchy out of the many Gospels which were extant^ selected 
four which had the greatest marks of credibility , and the ne-^ 
cessary completeness for common use.^ 

The answer to this by Mr. Norton, is complete and absolute- 
ly overwhelming. After indulging so much in extracts as I 
have already done, and must hereafter do, I shall refrain from 
presenting it at length before the reader in the words of the 
author. Suffice it to say, that he has strikingly exhibited the 
facts, that the church was at that period not a regularly organized 
body having extended ecclesiastical jurisdiction. There were 
no general councils ; no acknowledged single or complex bead ; 
no religion established and regulated by civil law ; — ^ina word, 
no appointed and generally acknowledged authority of any kind^ 
either to sanction or condemn books for the whole church. 
Besides all this, the churches were in a state of persecution ; 
they were separated from each other by distance, by diversity 
of habits, manners, customs and language; and tbe eastern 
churches, moreover, had been excommunicated by the western^ 
i. e. by Victor of Rome, before the period in question, so that 
great asperity of feeling existed in various respects between 
them. Under circumstances like these ; and also, I may add, 
when editorial criticism on Mss. and editions was a thing un* 
practised to any considerable extent, and in some respects 
novel and strange ; the supposition of Eichhorn is an absurdi- 
ty — an utter and palpable absurdity. It has not the shadow 
of a fact lo rest upon, and is altogether a fancy, like a multitude 
of others which he has thrown out upon the world, generated 
purely in his own fancy-loving brain. 

I cannot forbear, however, from giving the reader the closing; 
paragraph of this prostrating assault upon Eichhom's position.. 
It runs thus : 

But we may even put out of view all the preceding considerations.. 
*^ The Church,'' it is said, "• about the end of the second, and the be- 
ginning of the third century, first labored to procure the general re* 
ception of the four Gospels in the Church.'' By the Church, must 
be meant the great boay of Christians. The general reception of 



880 Genuineness of Ae Oospeb. [ Armx. 

the Gospels was founded upon the belief, real or pretended, of their 
being the genuine works of those to whom they were ascribed. 
The statement, therefore, resolves itself into the following dilemma. 
Either the great body of Christians determined to believe what they 
knew to be false ; or they determined to profess to believe it. The 
first proposition is an absurdity in terms ; the last is a moral ab- 
surdity ; p. 40 seq. 

On p. 42 seq. the reader will find a long and interesting Note, 
which contains an examination of some additional positions of 
Eichhorn's in the second edition of his Introduction to the New 
Testament, and which are in themselves substantial contradio 
tion of his opinion as stated in the preceding paragraphs. Yet 
although he has, in this new edition, represented the present 
copies of our Gospels as coming in tacitly and without oppo- 
sition during the period between A. D. 150 and 175, and this 
by virtue of weight and authority given to them in conseqiience 
of their titles, (i. e. The Gospel according to Matthew, marJCy 
etc.), yet in another part of this second edition he has left the 
passages that have been quoted and examined above, just as 
they were in the first edition of his work. This, on the part 
of Eichhorn, is presuming a great deal, either on the good na* 
ture of the public toward him, or on their stupidity ; for stu- 
pid they must indeed be, in case they should not perceive that 
bis two positions are quite at variance with each other. 

The general argument in favour of the integrity of the New 
Testament Mss. and Codices down to the present time, as ex- 
hibited in the preceding pages, may be applied, as Mr. Norton 
supposes, in its full strength, to the Mss. in circulation near the 
•end of the second century. In order to shew how difficult it 
would have been to bring about any considerable changes in 
«copies of the Gospels at that day, Mr. Norton endeavours to 
calculate, as near as may be, how many copies of these, at the 
least estimation of their numbers, must have been in circulation. 

Our present Gospels, it is conceded, were in common use among 
Christians about the end of the second century. The number of 
manuscripts then in existence bore some proportion to the number 
of Christians, and this, to the whole population of the Roman empire. 
The population of the Roman empire in the time of the Antooines 
is estimated by Gibbon at about one hundred and twenty millions ; 
■and, probably, it had not decreased at the period of which we are 
speaking. With rejgard to the proportion of Christians, the same 
writer observes : " The most favourable calculation will not permit 



1838.] Gemineness of the Ga9peh. 981 

us to loiagiiie, that more than a twentieth part of the suljects of the 
empire bad enlisted themeelves under the banner of the croes before 
the important conversion of Constantino.'^ If not more than a twen- 
tieth part of the empire was Christian at the end of the third century, 
just aAer which the conversion of Constantino took place, we can 
hardly estimate more than a fortieth part of it as Christian at the end 
of the second century ; p. 45 seq. 

The author then adduces several passages, and very striking 
ones they are, from Pliny and Tertullian, which shew that the 
estimate ofone fortieth part for Christians, falls, in all probability, 
very far short of the truth. He accepts it however, because 
he chooses to come much within the bounds that may be thought 
iust and proper, rather than hazard any thing by going a step 
beyond them. He then proceeds : 

" The fortieth part of one hundred and twenty millions, the esd- 
mated population of the empire, is three miUions. There were 
Christians without the bounds of the empire, but I am willing to in- 
clude those also in the number supposed. At ihe end of the second 
century, then, there were three millions of believers, using our pres- 
ent Gospels, regarding them with the highest reverence, and anxious 
to obtain copies of them. Few possessions could have been more 
highly valued by a Christian than a copy of those books, which con- 
tained the history of the religion for which he was exposing himself 
to the severest sacrifices. Their cost, if he were able to defray it, 
must have been but a very trifling consideration. But a common 
copy of the Gospels was not a book of any ereat bulk or expense. 
I shall not, therefore, I think, be charged with over estimating, if I 
suppose that there was one copy of the Gospels for every ^^ 
Christians. Scattered over the world as they were, if the proportion 
of them to the heathens was no greater than has been assumed, fifty 
Christians would often be as many as were to be f6und in any one 
place, and often more ; but we cannot suppose that there were many 
collections of Christians without a copy of the Gospels. Origen, 
upon quoting a passage from the New Testament, says that it is 
written not ^^ in any rare books, read only by a few studious persons ; 
but in those in the most common use.'' In truth, there can be little 
doubt, that copies of the Gospels were owned by a lar^ portion of 
Chrisdans who had the means of procuring them ; and m supposing 
only one copy of these books for every fifty Christians, the estimate 
is probably much within the truth. This proportion, however, will 
tdve us sixty thousand copies of the Gospels for three millions of 
Christians ; pp. 49 — 52. 

To forestall the objection here, that the copies of the Gos- 
pels could not have been so numerous, because of the high price 

Vol. XI. No. 30. 36 



S83 GemdnenesM of the Ootpdi. [Apbii# 

of IVfss. in ancient times, the author has given us in a Nole, 
some matter of curious interest respecting the price of ancient 
books. Martial, in his Epigrams, has stated the price of hi» 
13th book, which contains 272 verses, to have been four set-- 
tertii; or, if this should be thought too much, itoo sesteriii, 
which would still leave a profit, as he says, to the bookseller* 
The last named sum amounts to about seven cents of our money* 

With such facts in view, one can scarcely refrain from believ- 
ing, that the estimate of 60,000 copies of the Gospefs as being 
in circulation at the close of the second century, is far — ^very 
far — within the bounds of truth. Other facts adduced by the 
author cast still more light on the subject, and render it altogeth- 
er probable, in my apprehension, that if he had doubled, or even 
trebled, the number of copies, be would still have been within 
the bounds of truth and soberness. 

Now as Ivenaeus, about 180, asserts the general reception 
and acknowledged authority among Christians of the four Gros- 
pels, in language as strong and as unlimited as would be employed 
at the present moment, it must follow of course, as Mr. Norton 
justly concludes, that these Gospels had been a long time in 
circulation, in order to be so widely diffused and universally re- 
ceived. 

In Chapter II. Mr. Norton proceeds to adduce other consid- 
erations, which serve to confirm the position which he has taken* 
He shows, in the first place, that ^^ it would have been inconsis- 
tent with the common sentiments and practice of mankind, for 
transcribers to make such alterations and additions as have been 
imagined, in the sacred books which they were copying.'^ 
Such practices do not appear in the works of Thucydides, Ta- 
citus, and other historians. But the Gospels, in addition to the 
usual motives for care in transcription, present the highly impor- 
tant and influential ones which are drawn from their being deem- 
ed sacred. They were the basis of the Christian religion, in- 
asmuch as the words and deeds of Jesus, recorded in them, must 
foe the foundation of this religion. It would have been deemed 
sacrilegious, therefore, to have purposely mutilated or disfigured 
these records in any way whatever. 

To illustrate and confirm this. Mr. Norton brings passages 
from Papias, Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeua, 
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and others, which are quite 
to his purpose, and fully exhibit the common sentiments of 
Christians at that time, in respect to preserving the integrity of 



1888.] Getwinmeis of the Ooipds. 883 

the sacred books. He might have appealed, moreoYer^ to the 
commoD sentiments and views of the Jews, in relation to trans- 
eribiog the Old Testament m general, but particularly the Pen- 
tateuch. The Tractatiu Sophtrtniy written no doubt at an early 
period, exhibits such mbute rules and prescriptions in regard to 
copybts, as no other book on earth, I believe, can be found to 
exhibit. The prevailing sentiment among Christians must in 
all probability have been such, in regard to their sacred books, 
as the Jews firom whom they derived them were wont to enter- 
tain. 

Another view of this subject b presented by Mr. Norton. 
The Christian writers near the close of the second century and 
at the beginning of the third, bring reiterated charges against 
Maicion and other heretics, for mutilating and altering the sa- 
cred books. The severe censure which they cast upon them 
on account of this, does not leave us at liberty to suppose that 
such alterations were things of every day's occurrence among 
Christians in general. 

In particular does Mr. Norton advert, and with great justice 
and propriety, to the critical works of Origen, as fiirnishing evi- 
dence against the supposed alterations and variations of the 
Mew Testament Mss. Origen furnished a critical edition of 
the Septuagint firamed on the basis of comparison of Mss. He 
had a critical taste, and was very much inclined to indulge it. 
Yet all the discrepancies which he notices in the New Testa- 
ment Mss., are such as, for the most part, are still to be found 
in them, having been so long and faithfully preserved. 

Our author next goes into an. examination of a passage in 
Origen, which has often been quoted, in order to confirm such 
statements as Eichhom has made, concerning the alterations 
and variations in the ancient Mss. He shows, and I think sat- 
is&ctorily, that no more than the common and well-known sour- 
ces of error at all times are asserted by Origen. Certainly, if 
we compare this passage with the variations actually exhibited 
in this rather's critical and exegetical wdrks, we cannot suppose 
that any thing less than an extravagant estimate has been made 
of it by neologists in criticism. Compared with a passage from 
Griesbach, produced here in a Note by Mr. Norton, Origen's 
language is quite moderate and tame ; and yet, as we shall see 
in the sequel, Griesbach had but little ground indeed, even after 
the lapse of so many centuries and so much time and room for 
variations, to make such an assertion. 



284 Oenuineness of the Gorpels, [April 

I may well recommeDd to the sober and inquisitive reader, 
other remarks which the author here makes upon Origen's 
words, and also upon the representations of other ancient writers, 
in respect to the text of the Gospels. 

Nor are the remarks of Mr. ^forton less striking, upon the 
specific and individual character of each Gospel, in regard to 
its style and manner throughout. Each one has its own pecu- 
liar characteristics, which are uniformly preserved. Now this 
could never have been so, had additions and alterations- been 
continually made from time to time, as they are represented by 
some to have been. One very striking proof of this is exhibi- 
ted by Mr. Norton in his Addenda, Note C : where he presents 
us with three interpolations which are contained in some Codi- 
ces, but which are so manifestly foreign to the style, manner, 
and matter of the Evangelists, that even the most unpractised 
reader could not fail to discover that they must be adscititbus. 
One of these is an addition inserted after Matt. 20: 28. On 
this I must beg leave to make a few remarks. 

I shall not occupy these pages, by inserting the evidently 
spurious addition just named. But, as no attentive critical rea- 
der will, at the present day, fail to judge as Mr. Norton has 
done respecting it, and this on the ground that the internal evi- 
dence of foreign and extrinsic origin is overwhelming and de- 
cisive ; so I have a suggestion to make here, for Mr. Norton's 
consideration. If this mterpolation of some three or four vers- 
es, is so plainly disclosed by its own style and matter, how 
comes it about that the whole of the two first chapters of this 
same Evangelist could consist of extraneous and adscititious 
matter, and yet there be no difference of style or manner from 
that of the book in general ? That there is not any perceptible 
diflference, is a fact which I would establish by appeal to the 

{'iidgraent of every impartial reader. Nay, that positive resera- 
)lances, not to say identities, of style are spread over the whole 
of the two chapters in question, has been made out, in a man- 
ner past all fair contradiction, by Gersdorf in his Beitragt zur 
Sprach'Characieristik der Scriftsteller des iV. Testaments. 
This I take to be generally admitted. 

The reply of Mr. Norton would probably be, that * this uni- 
formity or similarity of style arises from the hand of one and 
the same translator of the whole book from the Hebrew origi- 
nals.' But this cannot be satisfactory. The literdity of an- 
cient translations is too well known to be in general called in 



1888.] Ge$in$mene$s of the Ooipeb. 285 

Suestion* At all events, the fidelity of the translator of Mat« 
lew, if there were any such person, must have been early and 
universally conceded ; for in the very next generation after the 
apostles, we have decisive evidence, i. e. in Justin Martyr, that 
the two first chapteis of Matthew were regarded and quoted as 
a part of his Gospel — and of his Gospel in Greek. Of this 
however, I intend to speak hereafter. It is enough for the pres- 
ent to say, that nothing less than a designed transformation of 
the original, in the process of translation into the Greek, can be 
supposed, if we maintain the ground that the two first chapters 
of Matthew are an interpolation. No translator of that early 
age could have so perfectly assimilated, in matter and manner, 
two different writers, unless he bad a fixed and steady purpose 
ei this nature, and intended to deceive bis readers, by making 
them believe that there was but one original author. Even 
then we cannot suppose any translator of that day had skill 
enough to effect his purpose. Nor have we any evidence, eith- 
er from the nature oi the work, or from the credit attached to it, 
of any thing else than an honest and simple version ; if indeed it 
be a version, and not an original. 

I repeat my question, then, to Mr. Norton : How can two 
writers be so exactly alike, as the author of the two first, and 
the last twenty-six chapters of Matthew ? It is against all that 
he has so truly and strikingly said, on pp. 78 — 62 of his work, 
respecting the marked peculiarities and differences of style be- 
tween Mark, Luke, and John. Why has he been silent there, 
throughout this paragraph, on the characteristics of Matthew ? 
Plainly they are not less marked, nor less uniform and general, 
than those of either of the other Evangelists. And this, I must 
add, is one of the most unaccountable of all circumstances, if 
the book in its present form be a translation — and a translation 
from two different authors. 

I am constrained to believe, that Mr. Norton felt some pres- 
sure here ; and he has managed this difficulty by keeping silence 
respecting the peculiar characteristics of Matthew, through the 
whole of this interesting section of Chap. II. Not* does what 
he has said of this Evangelist, on p. 90 seq., bring to view this 
topic.' — ^But more of this anon. I return to the general course 
of argument. 

In ^ 7 of this chapter, Mr. Norton has shewn, in a very happy 
manner, how every thing in the Gospels tallies with the times 
V)hen and the places where they were composed ; how difficult. 



886 Gemdneneii of the Oo9ptU* [Apbu. 

nay iroposdble, it would l>e, for spurious and adulterated addi- 
tions to preserve this concinnity ; and consequently, in case the 
Gospels had been tampered with as Eicbhom supposes, how 
easy it would be to detect this. 

Near the close of the chapter, Mr. Norton presents us with 
a summary of what it contains ; which on account of its impor- 
tance and the pleasing manner of it, should be here given to the 
reader. 

We have seen then, in the present chapter, that there is no rea- 
son to doubt that the Christians of the first two centuries had the 
highest reverence for their sacred books ; and that with this senti- 
ment, they could neither have made, nor have suffered, alterations 
in the Gospels ; — that the manner in which the Christian fathers 
speak of the corruptions with which they chai^;^ some of the here- 
tics, implies, from the nature of the case, that they knew of no simi- 
lar corruptions in their own copies of the Gospels ; — that from the 
notice which Origen takes of the various reaoings found by him in 
his manuscripts of the Grospels, we may conclude, that no considera- 
ble diversity among the manuscripts of the Gospels had ever exis- 
ted ; — that we may infer the same from all the other notices res- 
pecting the text of the Gospels in the writings of the fathers ; and 
from the absence of an v thing in their worbi, which might show, 
that their copies dififerea more from each other, than those now ex- 
tant ; — that the peculiar style of the Gospels generally, and the 
uniform style of each Grospel, afford proof Uiat each is, essentially, 
the work of one author, which has been preserved unaltered ; — ^tluit 
this argument becomes more striking, when we consider, that far the 
greater number of the copies of the Grospels, during ibe first two 
centuries, were made by Grreek transcribers, who, if they had inter- 
polated, would have interpolated in common Greek ; that it is from 
copies made by them that our own are derived ; but that the Gos- 
pels, as we possess them, are written, throughout, in that dialect of 
the Greek, which was used only by Jews ; — that spurious works, or 
spurious additions to genuLne> works^ may commonly be discovered 
by some incongruity with the character or the circumstances of the 
pretended author, or with the age to which they are assigned ; but 
that with the exception, perhaps, of a few passages, the genuineness 
of which is doubtful, no such mcongruity appears in the Gospels ; — 
and lasdy, that the consistency preserved throughout each of the 
Gospels in all that relates to the actions, discourses, and most extra- 
ordinary character of Christ, shows that each is a work which re- 
mains the same essentially as it was originally written, uncorrupted 
by subsequent alterations and additions ; pp. 88—80. 

The thetical part of this discussion being thus concluded, Mr. 



1838.] Oenmneneu of the OosptU» 987 

Norton comes next to the consideration of the objections and 
difficulties that have been raised against such views as he has 
defended. He informs us, that ' strongly as the corruption of 
the Gospels has been asserted, he is unacquainted with any for- 
mal statement of arguments in its proof.' 

To the statement which immediately fdlows, I desire to ex- 
press'^my most unqualified assent and to record my warmest ap- 
probation. It is too good to be kept from the readers. 

Those by whom it has been principally maintained, belong to that 
class of German critics, who reject the belief of any thing properly 
miraculous in the history of Christ. But the difficulty of reconciling 
this disbelief of the miracles with the admission of the truth of facts 
concerning him not miraculous, is matly increased, if the Gospels 
be acknowledged as the uncorruptea works of those who were wit* 
nesses of what they relate, or who derived their information imme* 
diately from such witnesses. On the other hand, in proportion as 
suspicion is cast upon the genuineness and authenticity of those 
writings, the history of Christ becomes doubtful and obscure. An 
opening is made for theories concerning his life, character, and works, 
and the origin of his religion. Any account of our Saviour, upon 
the supposition that he was not a teacher from God, endued with 
miraculous powers, must be almost wholly conjectural. But such 
a conjectural account will appear to less cusadvantage, if placed in 
competition with narratives of uncertain origin, than if brought into 
direct opposition to the authority of original witnesses ; pp. d4 — 96. 

Mr. Norton then has cleared himself here most explicitly and 
fully from the charge that has sometimes been made against him, 
viz. that he is a Naturalist, or a so called Rationalist of the 
lowest order. That the Saviour is a teacher from God, and en- 
dued with miraculous powers, is what he openly declares him- 
self to believe ; unless I have totally mistaken the drift of the 
above passage. But I should be slow to believe that I have ; 
for whatever Mr. Norton's religious views may be, I apprehend 
that one of the last things justly chargeable against him would 
be, hypocrisy and double dealing. He would not speak as he 
here does, unless his belief were such as I have stated. 

It may be proper, moreover, since I am upon this subject, to 
bring into view another passage in Mr. Norton's Note, p. lxii., 
which I have read with great, although not with unmingled sat- 
isfaction. The passage runs thus : 

In regard to the main event related, the miraculous conception of 
Jems, it seems to me not difficult to discern in it purposes worthy 



288 Genuineneis of the Oospeis. [Apeil 

of God. Nothing could have served more effectually to relieve 
him from that interpositioQ and embarrassment in the performance 
of his high mission, to which he would have been exposed on the 
part of his parents, if born in the common course of nature. It took 
him from their control, and made them feel, that in regard to him 
they were not to interfere with the purposes of God, It gave him 
an abiding sense from his earliest years, that his destiny on earth 
was peculiar and marvellous ; and must have operated most power- 
fully to produce that consciousness of his intimate and singular con- 
nexion with God, which was so necessary to the formation of the 
character he displayed, and to the right performance of the great 
trust committed to him. It corresponds with his office ; presenting 
him to the mind of a believer, as an individual set apart from all 
other men, coming into the world with the stamp of God upon him, 
answerably to his purpose here, which was to speak to us with au- 
thority from God ; Note, p. Ixii. 

I have said in respect to this last paragraph, that my satis&K>- 
tion is not unnUngled ; and I have said this merely because 
this paragraph, while containing what I deem to be truth and 
nothing but truth, does not by any means contain what in my 
view is the whole truth, in respect to the Saviour's origin. His 
genetic history goes farther back, as I apprehend the subject, 
than Mr* Norton has here intimated. John has given it to us 
in his Gospel. " In the beginning was the Word." Mr, Nor- 
ton, it would seem from the tenor of this paragraph, does not 
admit the preeodstence of the Logos, and therefore has some 
mode of interpretation by which he gives quite another turn to 
the sense of John 1: 1 and other kindred passages, than that 
which is commonly assigned to them. But in what tolerable 
sense the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, provided 
that no preexistence is assigned to him before conception in the 
womb of Mary, I have not yet seen ;nade out. Tliat Mr. 
Norton has some interpretation which seems admissible to his 
own mind, I doubt not. But he has no where told us in this 
volume what it is. Nor do I blame him for this. He did not 
design the volume to be an exposition of his theological creed, 
nor a book of theological polemics. I do not recollect that he 
has even once intimated, in the whole book, what his particular 
views are respecting the nature and rank of the Logos and of 
the Holy Spirit. It would be difficult, I believe, to make out 
from his Treatise any where, that Mr. Norton is a LFnitarian ; al- 
though those who are much conversant with doctrinal statements 
ought coiyoctMre this, on the ground that every declaratioo of 



1838.] Genuineness of the Oospels* 289 

a positive nature, on this great subject, is carefuHy avoided, 
I suppose it probable, that Mr. Norton stands in sentiment re- 
specting this matter, nearly in the position where Lardner stood ; 
and like him, he has throughout his work carefully avoided 
every thing, in general, which would be justly offensive to any 
party in the Christian church. In a book like his, this is ad- 
missible, perhaps commendable. At least those who difier 
from the author of this book in regard to the rank of being in 
which the Saviour is to be placed, must allow him at least the 
praise of courtesy, inasmuch as he has said little or nothing on 
this subject which can justly offend them. 

Most heartily can I go with Mr. Norton in the declarations 
above quoted, which have given rise to these remarks. As 
heartily can I go much farther ; but I am not persuaded that I 
ought to find fault with him, because he has not taken occasion 
here to avow his whole creed. He was not obliged to do so ^ 
and the expediency of so doing should be committed to his own 
judgment. 

But let us return to Mr. Norton's discussion of the objec- 
tions against the genuineness of the Gospels. The principal 
difficulties that have of late been raised, have sprung, as he sup- 
poses, and probably with good reasons, from the theory of an 
Original Gospel^ antecedent to our present Grospels, and the 
common source from which the Evangelists have all drawn. 

This Protevangeliumy however, did not itself remain unalter- 
ed. Every or any possessor of it, as Eichhom and others sup- 
pose, made what additions or alterations he pleased, according 
as he was prompted to do this by traditional information, com- 
municated either orally or by written documents which fell into 
his hands. The Original Gospel, then, when it came into the 
bands of the Evangelists, came in forms or editions (so to speak) 
which differed much from each other. The primitive text was 
mdeed the basis ; but the additions and emendations had very 
much changed the appearance and the contents of that text. 
Hence, as one Evangelist obtained one copy, and another fell 
upon a different one, and as all drew from their respective 
copies, so their agreement in very many instances can be ac- 
counted for, while the ground of their disagreement is at the 
same time apparent. 

Will it be believed, in after generations, that such a theory 
as this could have spread far and wide in the Christian world, 
and that a great portion of the writers on the Gospels in Ger- 

VoL. XI. No. 30. 37 



9S0 Oemdnenea of the Oapeb. [ Aprxi. 

many for the last fifty years have defended, or at least admitted 
it ? But what is still more, can one believe that such a theory 
should have been strenuously advocated in England, by no less 
a person than the translator of Michaelis, the present Lord 
Bishop of Peterborough ? Yet such is the case. In whatever 
way we may account for it, we cannot doubt of the facts them- 
selves. Writers of the graver cast, and such as do not mean to 
consider themselves as attached to Neology, have often admit- 
ted and built upon this theory. Thus we find Kuinoel, every 
where in ,his Commentary on the first three Gospels, appealing 
to the Frotevangelium for the solution of difficulties and the 
explanation of apparent contrarieties. 

Mr. Norton has judiciously reserved the discussion of this 
subject for the Notes subjoined to his work. He has done 
the same, in regard to several apocryphal Gospels which Eicb- 
hom appeals to, as having existed antecedently to our present 
Gospels, and sprung fi'oro the same Frotevangelium. I shall 
therefore dismiss the subject of them for the present, mtending 
to resume it in the sequel, when I come to speak of the Notes 
in question. I would merely suggest here, with Mr. Norton 
(p. 94), that the whole theory rests, and must rest, upon mere 
presumption ; for no Original Gospel, such as it assumes, was 
ever heard or spoken of, so far as we have any knowledge of 
Christian antiquity, among the churches of the primitive or ear- 
ly ages. But a mere presumption can not, on any proper 
grounds of estimating evidence, be admitted to outweigh the 
positive and abundant testimony to the genuineness of the pre- 
sent Gospels, which has been produced. 

That the reader may see to what shifts the defenders of these 
multiplex Gospels are driven, I will produce a passage from our 
author in which this matter is briefly stated, and briefly, but 
conclusively, discussed. 

It has been affirmed by Eichhorn, as a general truth, that '^ before 
the invention of printing, in transcribing a manuscript, fhe most ar* 
bitrary alterations were considered as allowable ; since they aflect- 
ed only an article of private property, written for one's individual 
use.*' This statement, which, if correct, would destroy the credit 
of all ancient writings, seems to have been made through inadver- 
tence ; and therefore, though apparently a principal argument in de- 
fence of the supposed corruption of the Gospels, cannot be regard- 
ed as a proper subject for particular remark. It is important only 
as showmg, that in attacking the genuineness of their text, one is un- 



1888.] Gemimmefs 0/ the Goipels. S9t 

consciousiy led to aasume priiiciples which would equally prove the 
ooiTuptioa of all other ancient workfl; p. 100. 

The remainder of the first chapter is employed in discussing 
some allegations of Celsus, of a slanderous nature, against the Gos- 
pels. The answer which Mr. Norton makes is able and satis- 
factory. 

The summary with which this first part of Mr. Nonon's book 
is conluded, should be here presented by way of brief recap- 
itulation. 

^ It [the genuineneas of the Gospels] appears from the essential 
agreement among the very numerous copies of these books, so di- 
verse in their character, and in their mode of derivation from the 
oiiginal. This agreement among different copies could not have 
existed, unless some archetype had been faithfully followed : and 
this archetype, it has been shown, could have been no other than 
the original text It appears from the reverence in which the Gos- 
pels were held by the early Christians ; and the deep sense which 
ibey had of the impropriety and guilt of making any alteration in 
those^ writings. It appears from the historical notices respecting 
their text, which are wholly inconsistent with the supposition of its 
having sufiered essential corruptions. And, finally, it appears from 
the internal character of the books themselves, which show no marks 
of gross, intentional interpolation ; but, on the contrary, exhibit a 
consistency of style and conception, irreconcilable with the suppo- 
sition of it ; pp. 107, seq. 

Part II. presents us with the evidence that the Oo^ls have 
been aicribed to their true authors. 

It is agreed on all hands, that at or near the close of the 
second century, the four Grospels were generally, or rather uni- 
versally received in the church, with the exception of a party 
or parties of heretics. Mr. Norton therefore goes on to shew, 
that they were attributed to the then reputed authors during the 
time which preceded this, i.e. in the earliest ages of the churchy 
This he does by appeal to all the leading early Christian writers ; 
some of them within the second century, and some of them just 
beyond its termination. 

His quotations from Irenaeus,Theophilus of Antioch, Tertui^ 
lian, Clement of Alexandria, Celsus the opposer of Christianity 
fabout 176), and Origen, shew, in a manner past all contra- 
aiction, what was thought, said, and written, respecting the 
authors of the four Gospels, within the period of 1 60-— 230 or 
240. Earlier evidence is produced in the sequeK 



29S Oenuineness of the OotptU. [Apbil 

In the selection of bis testimony, Mr. Norton is careful and 
judicious. He does not^ like even liirdner, bring in every thing 
which he can find ; but he appeals to a few direct, plain, une- 

3uivocal passages in each writer, which can leave no possible 
oubt on the mind what that writer's sentiments were respect- 
ing the point in question. 

Would that many writers understood the business of selecting 
evidence much better than they appear to do ! They are not 
contented with the principle, that ^ at the mouth of two or 
three witnesses every matter may be established,' but they must 
have as many as they can summon, and of all sorts of character. 
Especially is this true of the appeals made to the Bible in de- 
fence of some particular doctrines. The texts that have once 
been adduced as evidence, no matter how unskilfully or how 
inconsistently with exegetical principles, are not to be given up, 
but always to be brought forward in a contest. Numbers seem 
tp be regarded as more formidable than the kind of weapons, or 
skill to wield them. And all who from conscientious motives 
feel bound to refrain from going to such an extent in the quotar 
tion of testimonies, are regarded as secretly cherishing some 
heretk^l doubts or difficulties. 

I can scarcely imagine any thing better adapted to revolt the 
mmd of a simple and candid inquirer, than such a method oF 
accumulating testimony. Nor can I conceive how any thing 
could be better adapted to gratify a wary opponent. If an ad- 
vocate at the bar should summon twenty or thirty witnesses to 
prove the signing of a deed, or of a note of band, or to estaUisb 
ahnost any other fact, would not the very fact of summoning so 
many, strike the jury with suspicion ? And would not his an- 
tagonist advocate exult in the opportunity of cross-examining 
twenty or thirty witnesses, who would be sure, if adroitly man- 
aged, to produce more or less of contradictions that would ren- 
der the whole body of testimony suspicious ? 

Yet, plain as this matter seems to be, I am constrained to ask : 
When will it be understood, that a question in dispute is not to 
be decided by the number, but by the weight and quality, of 
the witnesses adduced ? Mr. Norton, however, seems well to 
understand this matter, for he has conducted bis investigations 
with due regard to it ; and he has given much more weight to 
his book in consequence of so doin<;. 

But it is not the testimony of the authors quoted, which is 
the only thing concerned with the question at issue. They 



1838.] Oemdnensss of the Oospeli. 9&S 

speak not merely for themselves, but for the whole body of 
Christiaos at their tune. Mr. Norton has so fine a passage on 
this subject, that it must be presented to the reader. 

In estimating the weight of evidence, which has thus far been 
adduced, for the genuineness of the Gospels, it is important to keep 
in mind, what has not always been sufficiently attended to ; that it is 
not the testimony of certain individual writers alone, on which we 
rely, important as their testimony might be. These writers speak 
for a whole community, every member of which had the strongest 
reasons for ascertaining the correctness of his faith respecting the 
authenticity, and, consequently, the genuineness of the Gospels. We 
quote the Christian fathers, not chiefly to prove their individual be- 
lief ; but in evidence of the belief of the community to which they 
belonged. It is not, therefore, the simple testimony of Irenaeus, and 
Theophilus, and TertuUian, and Clement, and Origen, which we 
bring forward ; it is the testimony of thousands and tens of thousands 
of believers, many of whom were as well informed as they were, on 
this particular subject, and as capable of making a right judgment. 
All these believers were equally ready with thQ writers who have 
been quoted, to affirm the authority and genuineness of the Gospels. 
The most distinguished Christians of the age, men held in high es- 
teem by tbeir contemporaries and successors, assert that the Gospels 
were received as genuine throughout the community of which they 
were members, and for which they were writing. That the asser- 
tion was made by such men, under such circumstances, is sufficient 
evidence of its truth. But the proof of the general reception of the 
Gospels does not rest upon their assertions only, thougn these can 
not be doubted. It is necessarily implied in their statements and 
reasonings respecting their religion. It is impossible that they 
should have so abundantly quoted the Gospels, as conclusive authori- 
ty for their own faith, and that of their fellow Christians, if these 
books had not been regarded by Christians as conclusive authority. 
We cannot infer more confidently from the sermons of Tillotson and 
Clarke, the estimation in which the Gospels were held in their day, 
than we may infer from the writers before mentioned, that they were 
held in similar estimation during the period when they lived ; 
pp. 133 seq. 

He then goes on to shew how different this testimony is 
from that which is exhibited respecting any other ancient books, 
where individuals spoke only their own personal conviction, and 
not the sentiments of a whole community ; also that early 
Christians had abundant means of determining the question 
about the genuineness of the Gospels ; that their moral and 
even literary character was much elevated above that of the 



S94 Oenmnenea of the Gotpeli. [Apbil 

mass of the heathen around them, and therefore they were more 
capable than was ordinary of judging in the premises ; while at 
the same time we have abundant evidence of their honesty and 
integrity. I would commend the whole of this excellent pas- 
sage to the attentive perusal and consideration of every candid 
reader. 

That early Christians did make inquiries respecting subjects 
of this nature, seems to be evident from the fact, that while all 
the spurious Grospels were rejected, the four canonical ones only 
were received. Nay, the matter of investigation went still fur- 
ther. Some of the books of the New Testament, viz. the 
second epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, Jude,and 
in a certain sense the epistle to the Hebrews, and at a later 
period the Apocalypse, were called in question by more or less 
of the churches, and were reckoned by Eusebius among the 
avt$k€/6fi€Po^. While this fact does not decide against the gen- 
uineness or authenticity of these books, it still serves to shew 
that early Christians were not such stupid and passive recipients 
of any and all kinds of writings and reports, as many Neologists 
would seem to consider them. At any rate, the books about 
which there never seems to have been any dispute in the church 
catholic, give us a pure and adequate account of Christianity in 
its history and in its precepts. Not that others are superfluous ; 
but what I mean is, that if the controverted books were even all 
laid aside, Christianity would still be in all substantial respects 
what it now is. 

Mr. Norton, in order more effectually to remove all the diffi- 
culties and objections that lie in the way of the genuineness of 
the Gospeb, has examined, in the next place, the theory which 
prevailed somewhat extensively before the time of Eichhom, of 
the Gospels being derived from one another. Griesbach, for 
example, made a vigorous effort to shew, that Mark is the 
epitomator of Matthew and Luke ; while others have supposed 
that Luke made use of Matthew's Gospel, or Matthew of 
Luke's, or that some one of the throe Evangelists copied from 
both ' his predecessors. Notwithstanding all the learning and 
ingenuity which have been expended on this subject, the diffi- 
culties with which it is pressed are overpowering. All the evi* 
dence that one Evangelist copied another, or others, lies in the 
simple fact of similarity, and sometimes even sameness, of ex- 
pression and design, in the difierent Gospels. But while this, 
as Mr. Norton has most ably and satisfactorily shewn in his 



1888.] Gemdnetien oftlu Oospth. 895 

Notes, actually extends to but a very small part of the Gospels, 
the dissimilarity, or rather, the peculiar characteristics entirely 
appropriate to each writer, extend over far the greater part of 
bis work. Thb fact then is utteriy irreconcilable with the 
idea of his being a plagiarist, a copyist, or at least a mere para- 
phrast. The advocates of such theories seem to hav^ entirely 
forgotten, that the discrep€mcieSy or (at any rate) the disnmi' 
laritiesy between the Gospels, which in point of number and 
importance far exceed the iimUariiieSy are to be accounted for as 
well as their near resemblances. Nothing can be further from 
giving a probable account of this, than the supposition that any 
one Evangelist is a mere imitator, or epitomator (as the phrase 
is), of the others. 

But Mr. Norton has brought other considerations to bear 
upon this subject, and I refer the reader to what he has said on 
pp. 15S — 155 of his work. In particular has he discussed the 
supposition, that any one of the Gospels was composed after 
the apostolic age, in the manner stated above. The estima* 
tion in which they were held, did not admit of their being so 
changed and remodelled. 

The second theory which Mr. Norton examines, is, that the 
Gospels were composed from unitten documents existing pre- 
viously to their composition. If such were the fact, then these 
were either alike or unlike ; if alike how came the authors of 
the first three Gospels to differ so much firom each other ? If 
unlike, and yet in good repute, as they must have been in order 
to be adopted as sources of new Gospels, then how came the 
churches to cast away the old Gospels and receive the new 
<»ies? These and the like considerations Mr. Norton has 
urged in such a way as to render highly improbable the suppo- 
sition, that written documents were the sources of our present 
Gospels. 

A third supposition which he examines, is, that after the age 
of the apostles the present Gospels were composed from tradi- 
tionary accounts then in circulation among Christians. Had 
this been the case, they must have been much more discrepant 
than they now are, and doubtless would have been filled, like 
the apocryphal Gospels which are still extant, with silly and in- 
credible narrations. Besides, Luke expressly states the fact, 
in bis preface, that many attempts had already been made, to 
compose narrations concerning the things which Jesus said and 
did ; so that, whenever his Gospel was written, it is manifest that 



296 Oemineness of the QotpiU. {April 

oral traditioii was not at that time the only channel in which 
the history of Jesus had been conveyed down. 

After this discussion, which is ably conducted throughout, the 
author comes next to inquire, how the four Gospels cwild first 
have gained the currency and authority which they did in the 
primitive church, unless they were genuine. 

The improbability, I had almost said, the impossibility of this, 
is well exhibited in pp. 164 seq. of his work. Such a thing 
could not have taken place, during the lives of the apostles, as 
the reception of the Gospels attributed to them, unless this was 
well-grounded. Their own denial of the fact, would have de- 
stroyed the credit of the supposititious books. Let us suppose, 
then, that after their death the Gospels first made their appear- 
ance, with their present claims as to authorship ; who would 
have admitted this claim, in case the books had not before been 
beard of? Or did the church expressly agree to authenticate 
these works, at a subsequent period ? When and where was 
such a thing done, and when and how was it possible, at that 
period, that it should be done ? 

There is another view of this subject, which is certainly one 
of no small importance in the consideration of it. The present 
Gospels exhibited, from the first, many apparent discrepancies 
with each other. These were not overlooked by early Chris- 
tians. In the second century, as we know from abundant testi- 
mony, strenuous efforts were made at conciliation. Origen is 
very fiiU and ample, soon after the close of thb century, on 
the subject of these discrepancies. He even magnifies them 
quite beyond the reality, in order that he might urge upon the 
churches his favorite method of allegorical interpretation. The 
greater the di&rences could be made, the higher the necessity, 
as he thought, of adopting hb mode of exegesis. 

With these facts in view, how can it well be accounted for, 
that the early churches did universally rceieve all four of the 
present Gospels ? Had not their genuineness enforced this re- 
ception, nothing can be more natund than to suppose, that, like 
the Corinthian church in regard to their teachers, one party 
would prefer one Gospel and another party would receive 
another. Thus endless and wide-spread contest, instead of uni- 
versal harmony, would have arisen am6ng the early churches. 
This whole subject is amply and ably illustrated in pp. 167 seq. 
of out author's work. 

Still lDK>ther oonsideratioa be urges upon us. Hie Jewish 



1838.] Qemdneness of the OaspeU. B97 

and Gentile parts of the Christian church had been much di- 
videdy even in the apostolic age, in iiegard to questions about the 
reception of the Mosaic law. This and other sources of dissen- 
sion^ so common and of so long standing between Jew and Gen- 
tile, instead of diminishing among the Palestine Jews, seem to 
have been augmented after the destruction of Jerusalem. The 
sects of the Ebionites and Nazarenes grew out of the Jewish 
party ; and to these the great body of Christians, at a very 
early period, became decidedly hostile. How then could the 
Gospels, the work of Jeirt , have been forced upon the reception 
of the Gentile Christians, after the division between the two 
parties became so marked and so permanently established? 
Confessedly and plainly the Gospels flowed from a Hebrew 
source. If Luke and Mark were not Hebrews, (the probabilitv 
is that they were of Hebrew descent, at least in part), still all 
antiquity unites in ascribing their Gospels mainly to the influence 
of Peter and Paul, and in supposing that these writings under- 
went their superintendance or revision. How then could the 
Grentile part of the church reject all other Gospels and receive 
our present canonical ones, which are of Hebrew origin, if it 
were not well and generally known, and believed without any 
doubt, that they are genuine ? 

Mr. Norton urges these and other questions in a forcible man- 
ner, and well adapted to produce conviction. I hope the reader 
will not satisfy himself with the brief sketch that I have given 
of the nature of his argument, without perusing the original. 

In the succeeding paragraph our author has a passage, whkh 
the reader will thank me for inserting here. 

It is acknowledged that the four Gospels were received with the 
greatest respect, as genuine and sacred books, by catholic Christians, 
that is, by the great body of Christians, at the end of the second cen- 
tury. But earlier than this time, it has been pretended, that we find 
no trace of their existence ; and hence it has been inferred that be- 
fore this time, they were not in common use and were but little 
known, even if extant in their present state. I shall hereafter pro- 
duce notices of their existence at a much earlier period. But waving 
for the present this consideration, the reasoning appears not a litde 
extraordinary. About the end of the second century, the Gospels 
were reverenced as sacred books by a community dispersed over the 
world, composed of men of different nations and languages. There 
were, to say the least, sixty thousand copies of* them in eidstence ; 
they were read in the churches of Christians ; they were continually 
quoted, and appealed to, as of the highest authority; their repula- 

Vol. XI. No. 30. 38 



298 Oemdneness of the QoMpeU. [April 

don was as woU 'established amoo^ believerB from one end of the 
Roman empire to the other, as it is, at the present day, among 
Christians in any country. But it is asserted that before that period, 
we find no trace of their existence ; and it is, therefore, inferred that 
they were not in common use, and but litde known, even if extant 
in their present form. This reasoning is of the same kind, as if any 
one were to say, that the first mention of Egyptian Thebes is in the 
poems of Homer. He, indeed, describes it as 8^ city, which poured 
a hundred armies from its hundred gates ; but his is the first mention of 
it, and, therefore, we have no reason to suppose, that before his time, 
it was a place of any considerable note. The general recepticxi of 
the Gospels as books of the highest authori^, at the end of Uie 
second century, necessarily implies their celebnty at a much earlier 
period, and the long continued operation of causes, sufficient to pro- 
duce so remarkable a phenomenon; pp. 177 seq. 

Further remarks, expanding, illustrating, and enforcing this 
view, are made in the sequel, which well deserve the reader's 
attention. 

Chap. II. of Part II. is devoted to a discussion of the evidence 
respecting the authors of the Gospels, to be derived from the 
works of Justin Martyr, who flourished about 140^-160, and 
who lived in Palestine, i. e. at Flavia Neapolis in Samaria, 
and was a native of that place, although of Gentile extraction. 
The question has been strenuously agitated, of late, whether 
Justin, who so often and largely quotes evangelical history, has 
quoted our present Gospels. The works to which he contin* 
ually appeals, he designates by the title of ' /^nofiptjfAOvsvfiaTu 
tap ^noatokcDv^ i. e. Memoirs of the Apostles. Into the ex- 
amination of this subject Mr. Norton has gone deeply, and with 
great patience, and candor, and accuracy, brought out to our 
view all the substantial facts which are concerned in making up 
a judgment upon the question presented. Not content with the 
sixty pages m the body of his work, which are devoted to this 
interestmg topic, the author has given us twenty-six more closely 
printed ones in his Notes (pp. ccvii. seq.), in which he has pro- 
duced a multitude of passages from Justin, in order to illustrate 
and fortify his position, viz. that Justin did quote our presetit 
Gospels. 

I deem his argument to be a triumphant one. It was moreo- 
ver specially needed, after the recent and laboui*ed attempt of 
Credner, to show' that Justin has quoted a PetrvM GospeljWud 
not any of our present canonical ones ; although he is forced to 
concede that Justb was not unacquainted with the latter. Long 



1888.] Genumeness of the Q<wptU. 999 

ago I came to the same conclusion which Mr. Norton has de- 
fended, by reading Justin's Dialogue vAth Trypho the Jew. 
The discrepancies between his quotations and the passages in 
our Gospels which he designs to quote, have been laid hold of 
by Credner, and by many others before him, in order to shew 
that Justin must have appealed to some work different from our 
canonical Gospels. But what is that work ? A Petrine Gos- 
pel ; a Gospel according to the Hebrews ; Memoirs of the 
Apostles (with this peculiar and appropriate title) ; and other 
like works, have been selected by some as the sources of Jus- 
tin's quotations. But of all the so named books^ (some of the 
names are but imaginary as actual titles), not one remains with 
which we can now compare Justin's quotations. How then can 
it be ascertained that he quoted from them ? 

If it be still urged, that the difference between Justin's quo- 
tations and the actual text of our Gospels is so great, that we 
muMt suppose him to have quoted some other books; the 
answer t» this is, a denial of the fact, and an exhibition of rea- 
sons sufficient to constitute a stable ground on which we may 
rest this denial. Justin differs no more in his quotations from 
the Scriptures, than most of the early fathers do. This I know to 
be fact, from repeated examination of several of them in relation to 
this same matter. Chapter and verse did not exist, in his days, 
in the Mss. of the New Testament. The process of unrolling 
a Ms. in order to get at a particular passage so as to copy it 
verbatim, was a very tedious one compared with the process of 
finding any thing in our present printed volumes. There were 
no Concordances of the New Testament in those days. In a 
word, a man who was writing with fervour of mind could not, 
on any ordinary occasion, stop long enough to hunt out the ex« 
act places where particular texts occurred, in the midst of so 
many embarrassments which would occasion long delay. We 
must add to all this, that in the days of Justin, the memory was 
ordinarily trusted to and employed much more than at the pres- 
ent time. Hence we see every where, in the early fethers^, 
memoriter quotations — a multitude indeed of them which are 
most palpably of such a nature, among authors who wrote, as 
all acknowleage, after the period when our four canonical Gos- 
pels were exclusively and generally admitted by the churches. 
On the ground that has served for an attack upon the quotations 
of Justin, those of Clemens Romanu8,of Irenaeus, of Tertullian, 
of Clemens Alexandrinus and others, might be proscribed. 



MO Oenuinentit of the OotpeU, [April 

What proves so much, however, does not prove enough for the 
purposes of those who would reject the testimony of Justin in 
lavour of our present canonical Gospels. 

Besides, tliere is one simple test of this whole matter. Justin 
has repeatedly quoted the same passages from the Gospels more 
than once. Now in doing this, he has varied in the same way 
from himself as he has from the originals. This Mr. Norton has 
abundantly exhibited, by submitting to our inspection the various 
passages of Justin where this is done. The reader will find them 
m the Notes, pp. ccxx seq. He will also find passages quo- 
ted finom the Old Testament by Matthew, with variations from 
the Septuagint version, in quoting which passages again Justin 
has followed the peculiarities of Matthew, and not of the original 
Greek or Hebrew Scriptures. 

If any one doubts, after all, whether there is not some force 
in the argument of Credner and others in respect to the dis- 
crepance between Justin's quotations and the Gospels, let him 
spend a few days in studying the quotations from the Scriptures, 
which exist in the works of the eariy Christian writers. 1 might 
even say : Let him peruse the New Testament, where he will 
find a discrepance between the quotations fix)m the Old Testa- 
ment and the originals themselves, whether Greek or Hebrew, 
which is not much unlike that exhibited by Justin. 

For these reasons I cannot doubt that Mr. Norton is in the 
right, in this very important matter ; so clearly in the right, that, 
as it seems to my mind, no reasonable objections can be made 
against his conclusions. 

At all events, the reader cannot fail to perceive, if he atten- 
tively peruses the views which Mr. Norton has given us in re- 
lation to this subject, that he has bestowed great pains and 
labour upon the coi^sideration of it, and that his conclusion is not 
to be reiected on the bare ground of hypothesis, or for the sake 
of establishing some favorite theory. 

In justice to the labour which Mr. Norton has expended on 
this subject, I ought to give a passage from him which states 
his reasons for it. 

The examination of the passages which we have gone over, is of 
more interest than may appear at first sight. Justin carries us back 
to the age which followed that of the apostles. His writings have 
been searched for the purpose of fiinding some notices of Christ, or 
acme intimations relating to him, different from the accounlB of the 
^EvahgelistB. It will be perceived that nothing which can be regarded 



1838.] Genuineness of the Oa^tls. 30i 

as of any importaDoe has been discovered. On the contFBiy, he 
gives a great part of the history of Christy in perfect harmony with 
what is found in the Grospels, sometimes agreeing in words, and 
always in meaning. We may infer, therefore, that the account of 
Christ, contained in the Gospels, was that which his followers had 
taught, and had received, as true, from the beginning ; that it was 
the account which Christians acknowledged astl^ foundation of their 
faith ; and that there were no opposing narratives respecting him, 
which disappeared in part, and m part coalesced into the forms 
which the four Gospels present It is remarkable, that in so early a 
writer as Justin, we discover so little matter, additional to what is con« 
tained in the Gospels ; so little, which it is necessary to suppose de- 
rived from any other source. The most satisfactory explanation of 
this phenomenon seems to be, that the Gospels had come down from 
the apostolic age with such a weight of authority, there was such an 
entire reliance upon their credibility, that it was generally felt to be 
unwise and unsafe to blend any uncertain accounts with the history 
contained ui these works. Such accounts, therefore, were neglected 
and foigotten. The Gospels extinguished all feebler lights; pp. 
222 seq. 

All there is to meet such an array of proof in favour of the 
position that Justin quoted our canonical Gospels, is the supposi- 
tion that he quoted the Oospel according to the Hebrews or the 
Petrine Oospel, as Credner is fond of naming it. But in Jus- 
tin's day this Gospel, whatever it was, seems to have existed 
only in Hebrew, so far as we can gather from ancient testimo- 
ny. Now there is little or no probability that Justin made use 
of a Hebrew Gospel. All his quotations of the Old Testament 
shew that he used the Septuagint version, and not the Hebrew 
Scriptures. And so in respect to the New Testament. He 
quotes passages, for example, from Matthew and Luke, where 
tnese Evangelists do not agree exactly either with the Septua- 
gint or with the original Hebrew, and in these quotations Justin 
exhibits the peculiarities of the Evangelists in distinction from 
both of the originals. Now, even if we suppose Justin to have 
well understood the Hebrew, and to have translated from it in 
his Old Testament quotations, how can we suppose, with any 
degree of probability, that his translation would minutely aocoid 
with the peculiarities of Luke or of Matthew ? 

There can be no doubt that Justin, living as he did at Flavia 
Neapolis, and surrounded as he was by those who spoke the 
later Hebrew, must have had some good understanding of the 
conversation-Hebrew of his day. But it would be difficult 
indeed, to find in all his works any traces of a literary or critical 



302 Oemdneneu of the Ootpeb* [Aprii. 

knowledge on his part, of the Hebrew. The instance of his 
etymologiziw in regard to the word JSuraPy produced by Mr. 
Norton in a rf ote on p. 226, is amusing, and instructive with 
respect to the point in question. He says, that JSatdp signifies 
apostate, in the language of the Jews and Syrians ; and — ^aV 
(the Greek case-ending of the word) means a serpent =^^ , 
(pronounced with a feeble sound of the n, which was often tlie 
case with the ancients). Such an etymology he must have 
obtained, one would naturally suppose, fiT>m some Jewish Rabbi 
who meant to impose upon his credulity. The slightest gram- 
matical knowledge of the Hebrew must have taught him that 
neither part of such an explanation is correct ; and that the 
latter part is even ridiculous. 

It is not probable, therefore, that Justin used the Oomel oe- 
cording to the Hebrews ; nor even that he used the Hebrew 
Gospel of Matthew, if that were indeed extant and in circula- 
tion at his time. The proo6 that he used the Gospel of Mat- 
thew as it now is, are indeed unanswerable ; for he has copied 
some peculiarities of it, which we cannot rationally suppose 
would have been adopted by accident. 

I am aware that Credner supposes the Petrine Gospel^ which 
be thinks was quoted by Justm, to have existed at a very early 
period ; and also that the real (jospel of Matthew and this ficti- 
tious one, or at any rate the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
were alike as to the peculiarities in question. It b, indeed, a 
very convenient and easy way of getting rid of difficulties, when 
we are at liberty to imagine any kind of facts which are adapt- 
ed to our purpose, and then conclude that they must have ac- 
tually existed, because they dispose of our difficulties so happi- 
ly. This, at all events, is one of Credner's ways of getting 
himself out of trouble. He is undoubtedly a man of great in- 
dustry and of much reading, but of a strong bias in favour of 
his own theories, and filled to the brim with them. His book 
affords much useful material for more sober and judicious writ- 
ers, and he is often striking and original in his remarks ; but he 
lacks— egregiously lacks— the BedachtsamJceit of such men 
as Moms, Emesti, and the younger Tittmann. 

It would seem then to be quite probable, if not altogether 
certain, from the circumstances above exhibited, that Justin did 
not quote the Gospel according to the Hebrews. What then did 
he quote ? In answer to this I must present a paragraph from 
MrJNorton. 



1838.] Genuineness of the Ooepels. 809 

• If it be still denied that he used. our present Gospels, then, tn re- 
gard to any other single book, which he may be conjectured to have 
quoted, it must answer to the following conditions. It must have 
been one which he and other Christians believed, or professed to be- 
lieve, ^ written by apostles and companions of apostles ;'' it must 
^ve been of high authority among Christians, a sacred book, read 
m their churches ; and it must, immediately after he wrote, have 
fellen into entire neglect and oblivion ; for no mention of it, or allu- 
sion to it, is discoverable in any writer who succeeded him. But it 
is impossible to believe all these proportions to be true of any book. 
Excepting the Gospels, therefore, no history of Christ can be na- 
med, or imagined with any probability, which Justin might have 
used. The presumption, then, arising from the coincidence of his 
quotations with the text of the Gospels, is left to operate with it» 
whole force ; pp. 230 seq. 

Id the sequel Mr. Norton proceeds to adduce various testi- 
monies from Justin, which serve both to show that he quoted 
our canonical Gospels, and to confirm the fact that they were 
regarded by him as undoubtedly genuine. 

In particular should it be noted here, as a fact which is of 
much importance, that Eusebius, who quotes so many ecclesi- 
astical writers that preceded him, and makes it a point to pro- 
duce any thing peculiar or striking in them, although be gives^ 
a full account (for him) of Justin and his writings, says not a 
word of his quoting any spurious Gospels; while at the same 
time he tells us, that Hegesippus, the contemporary of Justin, ap* 
peals to the Gospel of the Hebrews. It is quite clear, there- 
fere, that Eusebius did not consider Justin as making such an 
appeal. 

when, in addition to all this, we call to mind that Justin 
speaks of the books to which be appeals for his evangelical 
history, as being counted sacred, as read in the assemblies of 
Christians on the Lord's day in connection with the Old Tes- 
tament, and other like things, there does not seem to be much 
room for even suspicion that Justin did not quote our present 
Gospels. 

Mr. Norton then sums up his discussion in the following- 
manner : 

The argument ur^ed in the last chapter is, in its nature, cumula* 
tive ; and the accession of force to be derived from the evidence af- 
forded by the writings of Justin Martyr is not to be disregarded.. 
He carries us one step h^^r in our advances toward the apostolic 
age* What was before a roattor of inference, it may be thought of 



304 Genuineness of the Oospels. [Apbil 

necessary inference, becomes a matter of testimony. We leam di» 
rectly from his writings, that the Groepels were received by Christians 
of his age, that is by those Christians, during the first half of the sec- 
ond century, as the authentic and sacred records of the history of 
their master, the works of his apostles and their companions. 

Finally Mn Norton makes the appeal to the testinoony of 
Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, ana to that of Luke himself 
as exhibited in Acts 1: 1,2. Papias expressly mentions the 
Gospels of Matthew and Mark; and Luke appeals, in the pas* 
sage to which reference is made above, to a Gospel that bad 
been composed by himself. Thus is testimony carried back 
to the very age of the apostles ; and if any credit is due to it, 
it is decisive. Can any one produce a good reason why it 
should not be credited ? 

Mr. Norton does not appeal to the first Epistle of Clemens 
Romanus, (to tlie second which is undoubtedly spurious he 
could not appeal), nor to the Epistle of Polycarp to the Ephe- 
sians, nor to the Shepherd of Hermas, nor to the Epbtles of 
Barnabas or Ignatius. The two last of these are of such doubt- 
ful authority, that an appeal would be out of place in such a 
book as his, unless he bad the intention of collecting together 
every thing, whether strong or weak, apposite or inapposite. 
As to the Shepherd of Hermas, there is no satisfactory evidence 
that it quotes any portion of the Gospels. But in respect to 
the Epistles of Clement of Rome and of Polycarp, there is room 
to doubt, inasmuch as the genuineness of them in general can- 
not be fairly called in question, whether Mr. Norton has judged 
well in omitting the evidence from them. He has, indeed, fi;iven 
us his reasons for so doing, in ^ VII. p. cclxxxiv. of his Adden- 
da. But I am not fully satisfied with them, although I acknow- 
ledge that they deserve very serious consideration. 

Mr. Norton alleges that the Gospels are not named in these 
writings ; and although there are passages in them which acccmi 
with some portions of the Gospels, yet they may have sprung 
from traditionary reports, and not from written documents. 
Consequently, as he thinks, it would only weaken his cause to 
rely on arguments which might be of dubious efficacy. Some 
one might say, when appeal was made to these writers, that 
tbey who lived so near to the aposdes, or rather, who were 
<x»itempovary with them, might have drawn their quotations 
from other soutxses than those of our canonical Gospels. 

This caution on the part of Mr. Norton is certainly mucb 



1838.] Oenuintnt$8 of the OospeU. 805 

better than the opposite practice of heaping together ail sorts of 
testimony, good and bad, and leaving it to the readers to sep- 
arate the wheat from the chaff. But I would suggest here, 
whether Mr. Norton has fairly been consistent with himself. 
Justin Martyr does not name any of our Gospels. He lived, 
moreover, so near the time of the apostles, that he must have 
been familiarly acquainted with some of their contemporaries, 
and liave beard from them many accounts of the apostles' 
preaching and conversation. From these he may have quoted 
many a passage^ perhaps most passages, which Mr. Norton re- 
gards as taken from the Gospels. Yet Mr. Norton, and with 
good reason, pleads strongly for the admission of Justin as a 
legitimate witness in the cause which he is advocating. So 
would I plead for Clement of Rome. There are things, no 
doubt, foisted into his Epistle, in some later age ; yet they stand 
out as altogether different from the body of his work, and are 
as plainly spurious as the three famous passages of a confessedly 
spurious origin, which have been foisted into the Gospels, and 
which Mr. Norton exhibits on p. xcv. seq. of his Addenda. 
But the body of the epistle is of a sober, solid, affectionate 
cast, not profound, indeed, but still edifying to the primitive 
Christians, and adapted to persuade. 

That Clement does not name the books of the New Testap- 
nient, is clear enough. But is it not equally so, that he does 
not name the books of the Old Testament ? He does, indeed, 
call some of the prophets by name, but as individtials he men- 
tions their names, not as books. Chapters, verses, titles, i. e. 
running titles, I take to be all of modern origin. Certainly the 
now usual titles of the Gospels betray an origin quite subse- 
quent to the primitive age. EvayytXlov tiata ... is not the 
way in which an author would usually, if at all, make out his 
own title. It must have arisen from a later Redactor, who, 
seeing there were four books that all claimed to be Gospels, 
and all of which were acknowledged to be so, distinguished 
them by a xoio before the names, which seems to express the 
following sense, viz., the Gospel as it is presented or repre-- 
sented by Matthew, etc. Still, I am aware that the Greek 
writers sometimes used xaree before the names of autliors, 
yet not simply in the way of designating a mere title ; see 
Kuinoel, Comm. Vol. I. Proleg. <^ 2. All things considered, 
however, nothing can be more plain to my own mind, than that 
the usual running titles of our Gospels were not in the Mss. of 

Vol. XI. No. 30. 39 



306 Oemdnenea of the Ootpets. [April 

Justin's day, nor, of course, in that of Clemens Romanus ; and 
this is a sufficient reason why the names of respective Gospeb 
are not familiarly appealed to, as in our day. 

I will not say, however, that there is as much reason to rely 
on Clement as a witness in the case before us, as on Justin ; 
because the former lived much nearer the source of authentic 
iradUion^ than the latter, and may have oftener appealed to it. 
But still, when I compare, as I have done more than once, all 
the quotations by Clement from the Old Testament, with those 
which he adduces from the New, I can perceive no important 
difference in either case as to the modes of quotation, and I am 
led to believe, that in general he drew in both cases alike fixxn 
written sources. This will not exclude the belief, at the same 
time, that now and then a passage occurs, which has come 
down, like some of Paul's quotations of the Saviour's words, bv 
oral communication. I doubt not that such is the case with 
some of Justm's quotations. But why such an advantage should 
be taken of this, by Credner, Eichhom, and others, is a differ- 
ent question. They doubtless had their reasons for so doing. 
But I should deem it to be just as reasonable for me to say, 
that in Paul's time there was a Gospel different from our four 
in circulation, because he appeals to the words of our Liord, 
** It is more blessed to give than to receive,'' as well known and 
familiar to the churches, which words are not in any of the ca- 
nonical Gospels. 

Mr. Norton, then, as it seems to me, might have safely and 
soundly admitted the testimony of Clement of Rome, with the 
simple abatement to its validity, that it is somewhat more pos- 
sible, if not probable, in his case, than in that of Justin Martyr, 
that oral tradition might be the source of appeal. 

Here ends the text of the first volume or Mr. Norton's im- 
portant work. He tells us, (very gladly do we hear it afler 
what he has already written), that be shall next examine the 
evidence in fiivour of the genuineness of the Gospels, which 
may be inferred firom the use of them by the earlier heretical 
Meets. I doubt not that much land here remtuns to be possessed ; 
and I trust Mr. Norton will give us an accurate and intelligible 
survey of it. 

Thus much for the text of Mr. Norton's book, including 
several of the Notes which could not well be disjoined in our 
view of subiects discussed. But his Addenda or Notes com- 
prise a much greater body of matter than the text ; for they 



1888.] Oenubumu ofth% Chgfeb. 801 

take ap 290 pages of small print, while the text occupies only 
S48 ot pica type. Some account must therefofe be given of 
the Notes ; in regard to which one may truly say, that they are 
scarcely of less importance than the text itself. Some of them 
are indeed even of a higher cast than any of the text ; for they 
comprise the result of more severe, extended, and protracted 
efibrt, and of higher intellectual exertion. After saying thus 
much, the reader will naturally expect me to Exhibit some ade- 
quate reasons for such opinion. 

The Notes commence with an examination of Griesbach's 
celebrated theorv, respecting the Western, the Alexandrian, and 
the Byzantine classes or (as he names them) recentiom of Mss. 
It is well known that he considered this theory as fundamental 
in judging of the text of the New Testament ; for the goodness 
of a reading is not estimated by him according to the number of 
Mss., nor yet according to their antiquity merelv, but very much 
by the authority of the class or recension to which it belongs. 

Griesbach affirms, that these respective classes of Mss. are so 
diverse fix)m each other, and eadi so distinctly marked in its 
own way, that it is altogether an easy matter at once to sepa- 
rate and distinguish them. Of the Western text, as exhibited 
in Tertullian and Cyprian, he says that ** it differs toio iuo hab^ 
iiu universoque colorcy i. e. in its whole costume and entire col- 
ouring, from that which was used by Origen." 

The fint object of Mr. Norton is, to examine the correctness 
of this allegation. After giving a brief but lucid statement of 
the principal sources on which Griesbach relies in order to es- 
tablish his classification, and of the respective characteristics 
which he assigns to each, Mr, Norton proceeds to compare 
what this learned critic has said, in different passages ol his 
woiks, in relation to more or less Mss. of these classes. The 
orgumeTUum ad hamneai has seldom been used with more dex- 
terity or to better effect, than Mr. Norton has here employed 
it. in a word, he plainly exposes the learned critic to the charge 
of frequent and great oversights in relation to this subject, ci 
fluctuating opinion, and finally of absolute and downright sel^ 
contradiction. 

Thus much for the consistency of Griesbacb's views. Mr. 
Nort(», however, does not stop here. He goes on to show 
how difficult,, rather how impossible, it is to establish a theory 
like that of Griesbach, from ftict3 as they lie before' us. It b 
wonderful, indeed, how widely the views of Griesbach have 



308 GenuinenesM of the Gospels. [April 

been propagated, in relation to the subject of classifying Mss. 
Soon after his theory was broached, an examination of it was 
commenced on the part of some. Yet their efforts do not ap- 
pear to have been generally recognized. Matthaei attacked 
this lusus naturae of criticism very soon after its birth, and dealt 
out some rough and heavy bjows which made it stagger. 
Eichhom followed up in some good measure and seconded his ef- 
forts, to the still farther annoyance of this ill-starred progeny. Dr. 
Laurence struck through and through the very vitals of it, and 
let out its heart's blood ; (Remarks on the Systemat. Classiff. of 
Mss. by Griesbach). Others of less name dug the grave and 
decently buried it. But Mr. Norton has disinterred its remains, 
burned them to ashes, and scattered these to the four winds 
of heaven. May there never arise from them any phoenix-like 
yeppfjfia, which shall cost the critical world as much trouble 
to hunt it ddwn, as the original monster has done ! 

No where in his whole work does Mr. Norton appear to more 
advantage, than in canvassing the subject before us. In order 
that the reader may have a specimen of the nature of the sub- 
ject and of the reasoning employed, I must present him with a 
passage from Mr. Norton, and from Dr. Laurence as quoted 
l3y him. 

The quotations of Origen afford, according to Griesbach, the high- 
est standard of comparison for the Alexandruie class. But respect- 
ing these quotations, Dr. Laurence remarks as follows ; " In order 
to ascertain the true character of the readings of Origen, the whole 
of them together, and not a partial selection, should be examined. 
With this impression, I have given all which a diligent investigation 
enabled me to discover, in the IJpistles of St. Paul, and have noted 
those which agree with other Alexandrine authorities, or with the 
Western, or with both. The total amount of his readings is six 
hundred and nine^ out of which there are two hundred and ttoeniy' 
six^ which coincide with either Western or Alexandrine authority, or 
with both. Of the remainder, many, indeed, not unfrequently ac- 
cord with the Byzantine, but many more are perfectly insulated.'' 
" But, notwithstanding the great amount of this incongruous remain- 
der, there are found a sufficient number of fongruous readings for 
the purpose, at least, of a comparative examination.'' 

*' There occur two hundred and Ucenly-six^ which coincide with 
one or both of the classes alluded to. Of these, one hundred and 
eighteen are supported by Western authority alone, ninety by both 
Western and Alexandrine united, and only eighteen by Alexandrine 
alone. Supposing the existence of an Alexandrine text, we may 



1888.] OenuinenesB of the Oosptb, 309 

presume that Origen would frequently have associates of that des- 
cription in peculiar readings; but this presumption is far from being 
wanranted by fact. For in truth, the very reverse takes place ; as, 
out of two hundred and ttDenly-six readings, Origen has but eighteen 
distinguishable from the Western text, in which he is joined by any 
other Alexandrine Father. Nor even in this limited number of 
eiglUeen^ does he read in conjunction with more than one Alexan- 
drine, (sometimes with Clemens, and sometimes with Cyril,) except 
in the following five instances : Rom. iii. 30 ; 1 Cor. iv. 13 ; viii. 8 ; 
Ephes. V. 25 ; Philip, i. 24 ; in which he receives a double support. 
On the other hand, his alliance with Western authority, in exclusion 
of the Alexandrine, is so intimate, that he reads with that alone, not 
eighteen^ but one hundred and eighteen times, a full moiety of the 
whole amount. Neither does he here often read with one or two, 
but generally (the source indeed being more prolific) with numerous 
associates.^' 

Besides Origen, Clement of Alexandria is another of Gricsbach's 
principal Alexandrine authorities. Of Clement, however, he himself 
thus speaks in his last work : " I readily concede, that he often 
quoted passages of the New Testament from the Western edition, 
and agrees wonderfully {et consentire mirvm in modum) with the 
Cambridge manuscript. But he agrees also not unfrequently {non 
raro consonat) with mdtnuscripts of the Alexandrine text, the Vati- 
can, Ephrem, and Codex Stephani ti ; and this not only in passages 
where they give the same reading with the Cambridge manuscript, 
but in passages also where the Alexandrine authorities differ from 
the Western. "^ It may appear, from all that has been quoted, that 
Clement and Oiigen, though put forward as leaders in the cause, are 
but doubtful Alexandrines, and well disposed to go over to the ene- 
my ; or rather that they are both open traitors. More seriously, it 
is evident that there is no ground for distinguLshing under the name 
Alexandrine^^ or in any other manner, the text which appears in 
their quotations from the text found in certain other authorities call- 
ed Western ; pp. xii seq. 

The reader needs only to be reminded, in order fully to under- 
stand tiie nature of the representation in the last paragraph of 
this extract, that the Cambridge Ms. or Codex Bezae is re- 
garded as a leading authority in the supposed peculiar readings 
of what is called the Western Recension, 

I have already quoted so much of Mr. Norton's book as al- 
most to expose myself to a legal charge of republication without 
the liberty of the author. For the future, therefore, I must re- 
trench, however unwillingly I may do it, for the sake of keep- 
ing within the more appropriate bounds of a reviewer. 



310 Genuineness of the Gospels, [Apul 

I may with great propriety add, that I earnestly hope none 
of my readers will be content with the meagre account I 
have now given of Mr. Norton's masterly Note, on the subject of 
Griesbach^s rtcensions. The contradiction of himself by Gries- 
bach, his wavering opinions, his repeated modifications, and, 
finally his virtual abandonment of his own former system, in his 
latest work, i. e. his Commentarius Criiicusy are all exempli- 
fied briefly, but plainly and in a most convincing manner. 

Hug's recensions^ too, come in, and very deservedly, lor a 
part of Mr. Norton's attention. He examines the alleged the- 
ory of the recensions of Lucian and Hesychius, and shews how 
entirely destitute it *is of any ancient testimony which is at all 
adapted to establish it. (n particular, I do not see how Mr. 
Norton's construction of the famous passage in Jerome, cited 
on p. xxvti., and which has been used for the support of the 
above named recensions, can be met and refuted. I cannot en- 
tertain a doubt that be has given the proper and the only intel- 
ligible construction, which can be put upon the original as it 
stands in the text of Jerome. 

I can present only a few sentences more firom our author's 
Note on the subject of Mss., which will give the reader the gist 
of his conclusion. 

From what has been said, I think it evident, that the appearances 
in our authorities for settling the text of the New Testament afford 
no countenance to the theory of recensions, maintained by Gries- 
bach and other critics ; that there is no ground for a distinction be- 
tween an Alexandrine and a Western text, of which Griesbach re- 
presents the difierence as so great, and that the peculiarities of the 
Byzantine text may be explained without recourse to the supposition 
of a recension. The hypothesis is equally destitute of historical ev- 
idence ; yet it is incredible that we should not have found in ancient 
authors frequent mention of those supposed recensions, if they had 
actually been made. So far from this, however, their existence is 
inconsistent with the few notices respecting the history of the text 
of the New Testament, contained in the writers of the first four 
centuries ; p. xxxii. 

Jerome, m the Preface to his lAtin translation of the Gospels, 
says that he had corrected the errors before existing in the Latin 
copies by comparing together Greek manuscripts, that is, he pro- ' 
ceeds to say, ancient manuscripts. Not a passage has been pro- 
duced from any Christian writer of antiqmty which speaks of a 
standard corrected text as of authority ; nothing answering to the 
abundant mention in modem writers of the corrected texts of Gries- 



1888.] Oenuinenesi of the Gospels. 31 1 

bach, Koppe, and others ; nor is there a notice of any collection and 
comparison of the various readings of the New Testament, or of any 
book of the New Testament. 

We may conclude, then, that all our present authorities for set- 
tling the text of the New Testament are to be referred to the origi- 
nal text, as their nearer or more remote standard, without the inter- 
vention of such recensions as have been supposed. This conclusion 
is important in regard to the history and cnticism of the text of the 
New Testament, and especially as strengthening our confidence, 
which the theory of Griesbach is adapted to weaken, m the cenuine- 
ness and authority of such a corrected text as we have at me pres- 
ent day ample means of forming ; pp. xxxiii seq. 

Most sincerely do I hope that this Note of Mr. Norton's will 
grow up into a little booky on the highly important subject 
which be has here discussed. So much attention to it as be has 
already paid, has fitted him for the composition of such a book 
as I have named ; in which he should not only dissipate, as he 
has here done, the illusions of the dassifiersy but shew howj 
why^ and wherein, the various critical editions of the New Tes- 
tament already before the public have erred in the estimation of 
their authorities, by which they have decided the worth of various 
readings. Some sensible and useful hints on this great subject, Mr. 
Norton will find to aid him in Schott's Lc^oge, and in the pre- 
fiice to his volume of Comm. in Oal. et I. U. TTiess. Such a 
volume, conducted in the spirit and with the ability of the Note 
that has now been considered, is a desideratum in English sa- 
cred literature, and would be one of the most important favors 
that Mr. Norton could bestow on the republic of letters. 

The third section of Note A. brings before the reader the sub- 
ject of the various readings of the Greek text of the New Testa- 
ment, considered in relation to their character and importance. 

When the critical edition of the New Testament by Mill was 
published, it was discovered, that the Mss. which had been com- 
pared, afforded about 30,000 variations fifom the Textus Recep* 
tuSf i. e. the common or usual text of the Greek Testament. 
Since that period, the number of various readings has been greatly 
augmented by new comparisons, and amounts, at present, to 
more than 100,600. 

The subject was in a manner new, when Mill published bis 
work, and it took strong hold upon the public feeling. One 
portion of the community were struck with horror at the idea 
that there were 30,000 variations firom the received text, in 



312 Genuineness of the Go^els. [ApRtf. 

other authorities which were claimed as of equal or greater 
weight than belonged to the Mss. from which the Textus Re- 
cepius liad been published. Even Whitby^ enlightened as he 
was, and liberal enough, to be sure, in his theological notions, 
felt himself impelled by a proper regard to the authority and 
credit of the New Testament, to write a book against Mill's vari^ 
OILS readings ; and from the manner of his book, there can be no 
doubt that he thought himself to be * doing God service/ while 
performing his task. But, on the other band, skeptks were 
filled with exultation, inasmuch as they deemed the credit of 
the New Testament writings to be destroyed, by such a num- 
berless host of variations and contradictions. 

Collins among the infidels, who was by no means an inferior 
sort of a man, gave vent to his feelings on this occasion. This 
called forth from Richard Bentley his famous Remarks on Free 
Thinkings in which is a passage extracted by Mr. Norton, of so 
deep an interest and of such great worth, that I should do in- 
^justice to my readers, and to the subject and the occasion also, 
\ if I omitted the presentation of it. 

Mr. Norton remarks, that the number of vario\is readings in 
the New Testament is probably less in proportion, than in most 
of the classic authors ; which, if it be correct, (and we are going 
to see that it is), gives us more confidence in the genuineness of 
the New Testament text than in that of the great body of the 
classic writers. In justification of this remark Mr. Norton cites 
a passage from the book of Bentley that has just been named, 
which runs as follows : 

" Terence Ls now in one of the best conditions of any of the clas- 
sic writers ; the oldest and best copy of him is now in the Vatican 
library, which comes nearest to the poet's own hand ; but even that 
has hundreds of errors, most of which may be mended out of other 
exemplars, that are otherwise more recent and of inferior value. I 
myself have collated several, and do affirm that I have §een twenty 
thousand various lections in that little author, not near so big as the 
whole New Testament ; and am morally sure, that if half the num- 
ber of manuscripts were collated for Terence with that niceness 
and minuteness which has been used in twice as many for the New 
Testament, the number of the variations would amount to above 
fifiy thousand. 

'^ ]n the manuscripts of the New Testament, the variations have 
been noted with a religious, not to say superstitious exactness. Ev- 
ery difference in spelling, in the smallest particle or article of speech, 
in the very order or collocation of words without real change, has 



1838.] Gemifuneis ofth^ Ooipeb. 313 

been stiidioTBly registered. Nor has the text only been nuosBcked, 
but all the ancient yersions, the Latin yulgate) Italic, Syriac, ^thi- 
opic, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Saxon ; nor these only, 
but all the dispersed citations of the Greek and Latin Fathers in a 
course of five hundred years. What wonder then, if with all this 
scrupulous search in every hole and comer, the varieties rise to thir- 
ty thousand ? when in all ancient books of the same bulk, whereof 
the manuscripts are numerous, the variations are as many or more, 
and yet no versions to swell the reckoning. 

^^ The editors of pro&ne authors do not use to trouble their read* 
ers, or risk their own reputation, by an useless list of every small 
slip committed by a lazy or ignorant scribe. What is thought com- 
mendable in an edition of Scripture, and has the name of fairness 
and fidelity, would in them be deemed impertinence and trifling. 
Hence the reader not versed in ancient manuscripts is deceived into 
an opinion, that there were no more variations in the copies, than 
what the editor has communicated. Whereas, if the like scrupu- 
lousness was observed in registering the smallest changes in profane 
authors, as is allowed, nay required in sacred, the now formidable 
number of thirty thousand would appear a very trifle. 

'^ It is manifest that books in verse are not near so obnoxious to^ 
variations as those in prose ; the transcriber, if he is not wholly ig- 
norant and stupid, being guided by the measures, and hindered from 
such alterations as do not fall in with the laws of numbers. And 
yet even in poets the variations are so very many as can hardly be 
conceived without use and experience. In the late edition of Tibul- 
lus by the learned Mr. Broukhuise, you have a register of various 
lections in the close of that book ; where you may see at the first 
view that they are as many as the lines. The same is visible in 
Plaotus set out by Paraeus. I myself, during my travels, have had 
the opportunity to examine several manuscripts of the poet Manilius ; 
and can assure you that the variations I have met witn are twioe as 
many as all the lines of the book.^' — pp. 93—95, 8th £d. 

To take a few books immediately at hand, I perceive by a loose 
computation from a table at the end of Wakefield's Lucretius, that 
he has collected about twelve thousand various readings of that au- 
thor (exclusive of mere diflerences of orthography), from five print- 
ed copies only. Weiske^s edition of Longinus presents more 
than three thousand various readings of the Treatise on the Sub- 
lime, a work of about the length of the Grospel of Mark, collected 
from eieht manuscripts and two early editions. And Bekker has 
published variatums from his text of the writings contained in his 
edition of Plato, which fill seven hundred and seventy-eight crowded 
octavo pages, and amount to I know not how many more than sixty 
thousand ; the manuscripts used on each of the different writings b^ 
ing on an average about thirteen. The various readings of the New 

Vol. XI. No. 30. 40 



314 Genuineness of the Qospek. [Apbii. 

Testament, it is to be remembered, have been collected from a. ve- 
ry great number of manuscripts of the original^ manuscripts of nu* 
merous ancient versions in which it is not to be supposed that the 
translator 'always rendered in a manner scrupulously literal, and also 
from the citations of a long series of Fathers, who, we know, were 
not commonly attentive to verbal accuracy in quoting ; pp. zxxv. seq. 

• 

This is a long extract, 1 admit, but it would be dealing un- 
faithfully with the readers of this Miscellany to omit a passage 
of such transcendent practical importance as this. Every man 
instinctively feels his faith in the New Testament strengthened, 
when he can find assurance, as he does here, that its text has 
not been treated with less, but with more, care than that of al- 
most any ancient book whatever. For myself I do most sin- 
cerely thank Dr. Bentley and Mr. Norton for these excellent 
passages. 

That part of our public, (and this is by far the greater por- 
tion), who have no practical acquaintance with the copying or 
1)rinting of books, are hardly able to estimate how numerous the 
ittle variations in books will become, unless an extreme care 
is taken which the hurry of business will not often permit. 
Mr. Norton declares that there is no hazard in saying, that in 
our usual version of the Scriptures, there are, in the printed 
copies since the first edition in King James's time, variations 
which may be reckoned bv tens of thousands ; and if we are to 
compare the quotations of the Bible by various writers, as has 
been done in respect to the New Testament in order to obtain 
various readings, we might safely compute them at hundreds of 
thousands. I cannot doubt the correctness of his statement, 
after the experience whkh I have had in comparisons of this 
nature. 

But while this wears a formidable appearance to such as are 
not conversant with these matters, it will be found, when tho- 
roughly investigated, to be on the whole quite a harmless afiair. 
I cannot illustrate and confirm this declaration better than to 
quote the words of Mr. Norton. 

I proceed then to observe, that, of the various readings of the New 
Testament, nineteen out of twenty, at least, are to be dismissed at 
once from consideration, — not on account of their intrinsic unimpor- 
tance, — ^that is a separate consideration, — ^but because they are found 
in so few authorities, and their origin is so easily explained, that no 
critic would regard them as having any claim to be inserted in the 



1838.] Oemdneneis oftht Oospeli. 315 

lest. Of those which lemain a veiy great majority are entirely un- 
importtint They consist in di^rent modes of spelling ; in different 
tenses of the same verb or different cases of the same noun, not af- 
fecting the essential meaning ; in the use of the singular for the plu- 
ral, or the plural for the singular, where one or the other expression 
is equally suitable ; in the insertion or omission of particles, such as 
ojr and d6\ not affecting the sense, or of the article in cases ecjually 
unimportant ; in the mtroduction of a proper name, where if not 
inserted, the personal pronoun is to be understood, or of some other 
word or words expressive of a sense which would be distinctly im- 
plied without them ; in the addition of *^ Jesus'^ to ** Christ^' or 
'^Christ" to ^^ Jesus'^; in the substitution of one synonymous or 
equivalent term for another ; in the transposition of words leaving 
their signification the same ; in the use of an uncompounded verb, 
or of the same verb compounded with a preposition, the latter difier- 
ing from the former only in a shade of meaning ; and in a few short 
passages, liable to the suspicion of having been copied into the Gros- 
pel where we find them from some other Evangelist Such various 
readinjps, and others equally unimportant, compose far the greater 
part of all, concerning which there may be or has been a question, 
whether they are to be admitted into the text or not, and it is there- 
fore obviously of no consequence in which way the question has 
been or may be determined ; pp. xxxviii. seq. 

Mr. Norton then proceeds to shew in what way we may, al 
most with certain success, detect any considerable passages tn 
the Textus Receptus which are of spurious origin. Some such 
he believes there are. He mentions three which he deems to be 
of this character, that have been regarded as having relation to 
the doctrine of the Trinity. But of these he particularizes on- 
ly 1 John 5:7. I suppose the other two are 1 Tim. 3: 16, 
^iog ig^ttviQw^fj N. r. A., ^d Acts 20: 28, ^' Feed the ehurck of 
Ood^^ etc., where ^lov is the common reading, and xvylov is 
the one more recently preferred by most critics. The first pas- 
sage of these three sterns to be plainly destitute of the critical 
evidence requisite to establish it ; the second, as Dr. Hender- 
son in his E^y upon it has most clearly shewn, has an over- 
whelming mass of testimony in its favour ; and the third (^<oii} I 
would gladly view as a textus emendoTidus, and cheerfully sub- 
stitute nv^lov for ^^ov, inasmuch as at(*a &iov (which the com- 
mon reading would imply) is an expression utterly foreign ta 
the Bible. A God whose blood was shed, must surely be a 
^iog diVTigog as the Arians would have it, and not the impas- 
sible and eternal God, which I believe the Logos to he. 



316 Genuineness of the OospeU. [Apeil 

The value of all the immense labour which has been be- 
stowed on tlie lower criticism of the New Testament, is not to 
be estimated, then, by any important new light which has 
been thrown by it upon the doctrines or facts which pertain to 
our holy religion. Not one new doctrine is brought to light ; 
not one old one shaken ; and no impoitant fact b varied, or even 
obscured, by all that criticism has done. I speak now of what 
I believe to have been the actual result of criticism, on stable 
grounds of evidence ; not of some results to which some critics 
have now and then laid claim. For even Mr. Norton has cut 
off from us the two first chapters of Matthew, (not to speak of 
other and smaller passages), which certainly would be taking 
from the circle of our credence some important, or at any rate 
highly interesting, matters of fact. How far he may be deemed 
correct in his view of this case, I shall, if providence permit, 
endeavour to examine at a future time. 

Mr. Norton makes a very brief but judicious summary of 
what has been achieved by the labours of lower criticism. 

All those [improvements in the New Testament text] of any im- 
portance might have been made at a much less cost. Its chief and 
great value consists in establishing the fact, that the text of the New 
Testament has been transmitted to us with remarkable integrity ; 
that far the greater part of the variations among different copies are 
of no authority or no importance ; and that it is a matter scarcely 
worth consideration, as regards the study of our religion and its his- 
tory, whether, after making a very few corrections, we take the Be- 
ceived Text formed as it was, or the very best which the most labo- 
rious and judicious criticism might produce ; p. xl. 

In order to affi>rd the most ample means of satisfaction in 
respect to what criticism has achieved, Mr. Norton presents his 
readers with a synopsis of all the various readings which Gries- 
bach has thought worthy of notice, in the first eight chapters of 
Matthew. These are placed in one column, and the received 
text in another over against them, so that the eye catches, at a 
glance, the whole of the result. It would be out of place to 
insert this table here, but the reader will find it in pp. xli — ^xliv. 
of Mr. Norton's book ; and he will also find, upon close exami- 
nation, that there is scarcely one among the whole of these 
readings which is worth a passing notice, excepting perhaps the 
St*\n Matt. 3:1, and the omission of the doxology in 6: 13. 

The triumphant result, then, of modem critksism with its im- 



1838.] Genuineness of tlu Gospeb, 317 

ineasuraUe and almost incredible labour^ is, not tiie change of 
our text in any important respect, but the settling of the 
great question^ whether it needs to be changed^ in the necsa- 
Ti¥E ; and in the negative on an immoveable basis. I do not 
mean, of course, to assert this of every particle of the Textus 
ReceptuSj but to apply it to every thing which it contains that 
is of any serious importance. Who, that is of an investigating 
temperament, will not thank God and take courage fix>m such a 
result as this, after so ^ fiery a trial !' 

The next section of Note A. is empbyed in an effort to shew 
that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew ; al- 
though Mr. Norton admits that it must have been very early 
translated. The next following section assigns reasons why he 
considers Matt, i^ ii. to be supposititious; also Matt. 27: 3 — 10, 
and likewise vs. 52, 53. To these he adds Mark 16 : 9 — 20. 
Luke 22 : 43, 44. John 5: 3, 4. 8: 3—11. 22: 24, 25. 

By far the most important of all these supposed interpolations 
is the first, viz. Matt. i. ii. The importance attached to the 
position which Mr. Norton has taken in regard to them, renders 
It proper that the subject should be discussed at length. A 
book so grave and weighty as his, and withal so candid for the 
most part and serious too, if it contain important error, should 
not be left without at least an attempt to point out that error. 
My belief is, that Mr. Norton errs in the position he has taken 
as to the original language of Matthew's Gospel, and also as to 
the spuriousness of its two first chapters. As he has connected 
these two subjects together in his views and reasonings, it seems 
to be necessary to examine both of his positions ; which in due 
time I would hope to do. 

As to the other passages the genuineness of which he calls^ 
in question, I shall be able to bestow on them only a passing 
notice, lest the readers of this work should be wearied with dis- 
cussions of this nature. Still, I must enter my protest, at least, 
against some of his conclusions, and give some brief reasons for 
so doing. 

In Note B. Mr. Norton has presented us with the various 
readings of Gospels compared by Origen, which readings that 
lather recorded. The reader is referred to them, as affording 
complete evidence that the text of his day was even more uni- 
form than it now is ; and also as an exposition €f facts in respect 
to discrepancies among ancient Mss., by which we are to ex« 
plain the declarations of Origen, Jerome, and others, about this 



390 Oenuineneis of the Gotpelt. [knav 

into two portions ; the one oon«stinff of ihat part in whidi the evan* 
gelist speaks in hts own person, and the other of words professedly 
not his own. Having done this, it appears from the statements be- 
fore made, that the same cause could not have operated alone in 
both these different portions, to produce coincidence of language. 
We cannot explain this phenomenon by the supposition, that the 
Gospels were transcribed either one from another, or all from com- 
mon documents ; because, if such transcription had been the cause, 
it would not have produced results so unequal in the different por- 
tions into which the Gospels naturally divide themselves. 

But in regard to the words of Jesus, other causes were in opera- 
tion, that may account for the verbal coincidences among the evan- 
^lists, in their reports of what he said. There was, in tfis case, an 
mvariable archetype, to which each writer would endeavour to con- 
form himself. Events may be correctly related in many forms of 
language different from each other. Words can be repeated with 
accuracy only in one form. But each of the first three evangelists 
intendea to ^ve the words of his master as they were uttei^ by 
him. Nor is it to be supposed, that the evangelist, while writing, 
merely recollected those words as having been formerly uttered hy 
Jesus, and repeated them for the first time. He had oAen, without 
doubt, quoted them in his oral discourses, and heard them quoted by 
his fellow-preachers of Christianity. From the nature of the case, 
tiiey must, many of tiiem, have become formularies in which tiie 
doctrines and precepts of our religion were expressed. The agree- 
ment of the fiist three evangelists, in their reports of the woras of 
Christ, is no greater than these considerations would lead us to anti- 
cipate. There is no ground for any other hypothesis concerning 
it ; pp. cii. seq. 

In addition to these natural sources of agreement or sameness, 
It should be mentioned, that the words of others which are 
cited, as well as those of the Saviour ; and in like manner all 
the quotations from the Septuagint Version of the Old Testa- 
ment ; would of course fall under the same general category. 
The cases where the quotations of the Evangelists differ from 
the Septuagint text, and yet agree with each other, Mr. Norton 
▼ery naturally solves by the supposition, (which we know must 
in many cases have been matter of fact), that the Septuagint 
text of the Evangelists' day differed in many places from that 
in our present copies. 

Mr. Norton observes, in the next place, that the coincidences 
of the Gospels as to diction, '' does not lie together in masses." 
They are almost every where confined to clauses merely, or 
fragments of sentences ; rarely do they make up, without in- 



1838.] Oenidneness of the Oospels. 3S1 

temipUon, eveo a single verse at a time. la order to exem- 
plify this, he presents, in the way of comparison, the account 
given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, of the cure of the para- 
lytic at Capernaum ; which is a fair specimen of what is com- 
mon to many paragraphs of the first three Gospels. The mi- 
nute discrepancies which every where appear, even in such ac- 
counts as this, shew something different in each case from the 
hand of a mere copyist or redactor. 

The discrepancies in chronology, or, to speak more accu- 
rately, the discrepancies as to series or order of events^ in the 
different Gospels, have fix>m the most ancient times attracted 
the notice of all critical readers. It is well known that Mark 
and Luke depart from the order of Matthew in a number of 
somewhat important cases ; moreover, that although they agree 
more nearly with each other than they do with Matthew, in 
regard to the general order of events, yet in several cases even 
Mark and Luke are quite discrepant from each other. 

These differences Mr. Norton has brought fully into view ; 
and be insists that these, as well as the other phenomena of 
the Gospels, ought to be accounted for by the theories that 
have lately been proffered to the notice of the public, before we 
can adopt those theories as probable. 

He then proceeds to examine the supposition, that two of 
the Evangelists copied, the one from his predecessor, and the 
other from both his predecessors. For example ;. we may sup- 
pose that Luke first copied from Matthew, and then Mark cop- 
ied from both Matthew and. Luke. Now the points of disa- 
greement between Matthew and Luke are so many, both as to 
matter, manner, order, and idiom, that any thing like copying 
on the part of Luke, in the common sense of that word, is quite 
out of question. Then in the next place, Mark differs so wide- 
ly from both the others, in regard to compass and kinds of 
matter, manner, order, etc., that no tolerable probability can be 
made out of his having been a copyist ; nor, indeed, in case he 
had been, can we assign any credible motive for undertaking 
his performance. 

By considerations such as these, and allied to these, Mr. 
Norton tries and examines the various theories which maintain 
that the Evangelists were copyists of each other ; some copy- 
ists in this way, and some in that, for there is no one of the 
three Evangelists in question, who has not been placed first in 
order by some of the critics. To all such as have been per- 
VoL. IX. No. 30. 41 



322 Oenuineness of the Gospeb. [April 

piexed by the theories on the subject of the formation of the 
Gospels, which critics have lately excogitated ; to all who wish 
to see how easy it is to impose upon one's self, and on the pub- 
lic too, by publishing one-sided and partial views of any mat- 
ter ; I would most sincerely commend the diligent perusal of 
what Mr. Norton lias written on this subject. The conviction 
which I have long had, that the whole affair is only " castle- 
building in the air," has been greatly heightened by reading Mr. 
Norton. 

But while the theory, which maintained that one Evangelist 
copied from another or others, has of late been gradually and 
almost silently going into desuetude on account of the internal 
and insuperable difficulties which it presents, the newer and 
more fashionable one of a ProtevangeKuniy which Eichhomand 
Marsh have decked out in so many gaudy colours, has been 
wide spread on the continent, as I have before remarked. 
Eichhom was not indeed the father, but only the nurse, of this 
unlucky progeny. Semler I take to be its progenitor ; Lessing, 
Niemeyer, Halfeld, and Paulus, its Lucinas ; Eichhorn its 
prime-nurse. Marsh its god-father, and Ziegler, Gratz,'Bert- 
holdt, Weber, and Kuinoel, its foster-fathers. 

But with all the nursing and care bestowed upon it, it has 
proved to be but a sickly child. It was bom with the seeds of 
phthisis in its constitution ; and although for a while its ruddy 
race appeared to indicate, in early youth, some symptoms of a 
vigorous state, yet it soon began to grow pale and sickly. It 
has recently been fast approaching the last stages of disease ; 
and now Mr. Norton has administered a dose which will pre* 
cipitate its death. If not, then my prognosis is not secundum 
artem. 

I will not repeat here the account which is briefly given on p. 
289 seq. above. Mr. Norton will present the reader with a more 
full and minute detail respecting the documents supposed to be 
employed by the Evangelists, on pp. cxxxiii. seq. of Addenda. 
The recapitulation of this, by Mr. Norton himself, may however 
be presented to help the reader on this occasion to a right view 
of the subject. 

I will briefly recapitulate the steps in this hypothesis. The first 
supposition is of an Original Gospel, written in Hebrew, and receiv- 
ing continual additions from various hands. This is supposed to 
have been used in three different forms by the first three evange- 
lists, being in one of its forms, the basis of the woric of each. Be- 



1838.] Genuineness of the Oaspels. 323 

sides this document, it is supposed, that there was another, a mis- 
cellaneous collection of discourses and sayings of Jesus, likewise 
written in Hebrew, which was used only by Matthew and Luke. 
Thus, the genuine correspondence of matter and language^ among all 
three evangelists, and between any two of the evangelists in portions 
peculiar to them, is thought to be accounted for. The verbal coin" 
cidences between Mark and Luke are explained by the supposition, 
that they both used a Greek translation of the Original Gospel, made 
before diat work had received any additions ; and the verbal coin- 
cidences between our present Greek Grospel of Matthew and the 
other two Gospels, by the supposition, that nis translator used their 
Gospels in rendering into Greek the Hebrew original of Matthew ; 
p. czzzvi. 

On the supposed Protevangelium or Original Gospel thus 
proffered to the notice of the critical world, Mr. Norton pro- 
ceeds to make some judicious and common-sense remarks. Very 
plain and striking is it, as he shews, that if such an Original 
Gospel did exist in early ages, it must have been regarded as a 
work of great importance and of very iiigh credit. Otherwise, 
how is it rational to suppose, that the Evangelists all chose it 
as the basis of their respective works ? 

Copies, moreover, of such a work must have been widely 
circulated, and have of course been in the hands of many Chris- 
tians in di&rent regions and countries. How then comes it 
about, that no ancient ivriter ever once makes mention of any 
such Protevangelium 1 The fact cannot be disputed. 
There is not a solitary hint of any such thing in all Christian 
antiquity. Yet we have often repeated mention of any and all 
kinds of apocryphal writings, even the most contemptible and 
insignificant. But the book of books — the great legitimate 
source of our canonical Gospels — the spring from which all 
these streams Issued — ^is not even once named among such wri- 
ters as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, 
or any of their followers ! 

The whole a&ir, then, is upon the very face of it an incredi- 
ble thing. And still more difficult than even the matter above, 
is the faot that no copy of such an authentic and important 
work as the Protevangelium, has ever been preserved. Origen, 
the great investigator of all ancient Mss., never, in all his trav- 
els, lighted upon such a treasure as this. 

Facts such as these give a death-blow to all the claims which 
can be urged, in fevour of such a work. Mr. Norton has not 
failed to urge these, and to set the whole matter in its proper light. 



324 Genuineness of the Oospeb. [April 

Other considerations, and weighty and conclusive ones too, 
Mr. Norton urges against the claims that have been made in 
favour of a Protevangelium. It could not have been tampered 
with, considering its weight &nd authenticity, in such a manner 
as Eichhorn and Marsh suppose. Such a process was contrary 
to all preconceived notions and ordinary habits of tlie Jews, in 
respect to writings deemed sacred. Matthew, in particular, 
having been an original eye-witness of the public life of Jesus, 
did not need any such additions as were made to the Protevan- 
gelium, nor indeed the work itself, to give him information. 
Luke and Mark had a more certain source to which they could 
appeal, than an interpolated document which had gone through 
alterations by all sorts of hands. Luke's own testimony, in the 
Preface to his Gospel, is directly in the face of such a supposi- 
tion ; for there he states, not his de])endence on written docu- 
ments, but the contrary. Nothing like the embodying of an 
Original Gospel in their productions, can be found in the Gos- 
pels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke ; nor do these Gospels enable 
any one at all, as Eichhorn affirms they do, to separate what 
was originally selected and what was adjectitious. The varia- 
tions — unimportant variations — of the Evangelists from each 
other, in cases where the matter and expression in various re- 
spects correspond, cannot be accounted for on any rational 
ground, if we suppose them to have copied an Original Gospel. 
Such variations exhibit no appearance of being designed emen-- 
dations ; and if they are not so, how came they to be made ? 
Moreover, the appropriate uniformity of style in each of the 
different Gospels shews that they are not compiled from a work, 
which had already been altered some five or six times (as Eich- 
horn and Marsh would lead us to suppose) before it came into 
their hands. 

I hope Mr. Norton will be ready, when we come to the ex- 
amination of his theory about the spuriousness of Matt. i. ii. and 
his belief in a Hebrew original of Matthew, to recognize what 
he has here so well and truly said, of the individual and consis- 
tent character, " the well defined features," of Matthew's Gos- 
pel. I fully accord with what is here said ; and have only to 
ask that neither he nor my readers may suflfer it to pass from 
their recollection. 

Although I have made out a short summary, and a very 
brief one it is, of Mr. Norton's arguments against the supposi- 
lioo of a Protevangelium, yet, that the reader may be led still 



1838.] Genuineness of the Gospels. 325 

better to comprehetid this subject, I will present him with a re- 
capitulation made by Mr. Norton himself, near the close of his 
argameots. 

Notwithstanding, therefore, the ingenuity and labor with which 
the hypothesis in question has been defended, I believe the objec- 
tions to which it is exposed, occur, in a more or less definite form, 
to almost every one who has examined it. It supposes an Original 
Gospel, sanctioned by the apostles ; yet, had such a work existed,. 
we cannot believe, that, even if the Hebrew original had perished,, 
its Greek translation would have been lost, and no memory of the 
book remain. It supposes this book to have been treated in a man- 
ner without parallel in literary history, and wholly inconsistent with 
the authority which must have been ascribed to it. It implies a so- 
licitude about the finishing and refashioning of writings, equally in- 
consistent with the character and habits of the Jews of Palestine. It 
requires us to believe, that the evangelists copied into their histories 
the collections of anonymous individuals ; when one of them was an 
eyewitness of the events which he related, and the other two were 
in habits of continual intercourse with those, who, like him, were 
the primary sources of information respecting the history of Jesus,, 
and the business of whose lives it was to afford this information to 
others. It is inconsistent with the account which St. Luke gives of 
the manner in which he procured the materials for his Grospel, and 
with the historical notices which we have of the composition of the 
other Gospels of Matthew and Mark, notices, which, so far as they 
represent these Grospels as containing what the apostles had before 
delivered orally, are confirmed by their intrinsic probability. And 
it fails of its proposed object. It does not explain the phenomena of 
the agreement and disagreement of the first three Grospels ; but, on 
the other hand, is irreconcilable with the appearances those Grospels 
present For it supposes, that an original document was so used as 
the basis of the first three Gospels, that it is still preserved in each ; 
while, in fact, no such document can be discovered. On the con- 
trary, in the unsuccessful attempts^ade to restore this document, it 
becomes necessary to represent it as so brief, defective, and unsatis- 
factory, tliat we cannot believe such a work to have existed, because 
we can discern no purpose for which it could have been intended. 
The hypothesb implies, that the correspondences of the three Gos- 
pels may be separated from their differences 'by a sort of mechani- 
cal process, so that the former may af\erward be brought together 
and form a connected whole ; while, in fact, the one and the other 
are blended so intimately, as continually to appear together in the 
same narrative. In attempting to account for the correspondences of 
these books with each other, it presents a solution which requires 
much more correspondence than exists. And« in the last place, the 



326 GenuincTiess of the Gospels. [Apkii^ 

number of writers whom it represents as contributing materials for 
the Grospels, is irreconcilable with the individuality of character evi- 
dent in each of them ; pp. clix. seq. 

Mr. Norton next proceeds to shew^ that there is another 
and more satisfactory method of accounting for the coinciden- 
ces of the three first Gospels. In substance this is given on 
p. 289 seq. above. The amount of it is, that the events of Je- 
sus's life and his sayingd were so deeply impressed on the minds 
of multitudes, that they needed no writings at first, in order to 
recal them to memory. But when a new generation came to 
spring up, who had not witnessed these things, the danger of 
forgetting them, and of varying the narrations respecting them, 
became more and more apparent. There were, however, 
many original witnesses still living, when the Gospels were 
written. The preachers of the Gospel had often, and in each 
other's presence, given accounts of many important facts and 
sayings of Jesus. On all sides, the essential features in nar- 
rations of this sort were preserved, and were apparent ; while 
some individuality would also of course appear, in the different 
modes of expression adopted by different narrators. 

A single passage from Mr. Norton here, will illustrate and 
expand this view. 

We conclude, then, that portions of the bistoiy of Jesus, longer or 
shorter, were of\en related by the apostles ; and it is evident, that 
the narrative at each repetition by the same individual, would become 
more fixed in its form, so as soon to be repeated by him with the 
same circumstances and the same turns of expression. Especially, 
would no one vary from himself in reporting the words of his Mas- 
ter. We have next to consider, that the apostles, generally, would 
adopt a uniform mode of relating the same events. The twelve 
apostles, who were companions of our Saviour, resided together at 
Jerusalem, we know not for how long a period, certainly for several 
years ; acting and preaching in concert. This being the case, they 
would confer together continually ; they would be present at eacn 
other^s discourses, in which the events of their Master's life were re* 
lated ; they would, in common, give instruction respecting his histo- 
ry and doctrine to new converts, especially to those who were to go 
forth as missionaries. From all these circumstances, their modes of 
narrating the same events would become assimilated to each other. 
Particularly would their language be the same, or nearly the same, 
in quoting and applying passages of the Old Testament as propheti- 
cal ; and in reciting the words of Jesus, whose very expressions 
they must have been desirous of retaining. But the verbal agree- 



1838.] Oenuineness of the Oospels. 337 

ment between the fiist three Grospels is found, as we have seen, 
principally where the evangelists record words spoken by Christ or 
by others, or allege passages from the Old Testament Elsewhere 
there is of^en much resemblance of conception and expression, but, 
comparatively, much less verbal coincidence ; pp. clxvi. seq. 

Mr. Norton, in mentioning that the instruction of the Rabbies 
was given orally and retained by memory, and thus showing 
that the Jews were accustomed to the exercise of their memo- 
ries in the way of preserving what their teachers inculcated, has 
not urged the subject, as it seems to me, so far as he might and 
should have done. He does not mention that the whole copy 
of the oral law of the Jews, which they call Mishna (i. e. the 
iteration) was brought down memoriter to the time of the Rabbi 
Joseph Hakkodesh, i. e. to more than a century after the birth 
of Christ. There cannot be a question that many of the rites 
and maxims of the Pharisees, adverted to in the Gospels, are 
embodied in the Mishna. The book itself begins with the de- 
claration, that the contents of it were delivered orally to Moses 
on Mount Sinai ; then by him to the Seventy Elders ; by these 
to heads of divisions and families ; by them to the mass of the 
people ; and so in succession down to the time when Rabbi Ju- 
dab committed the whole to writing. I do not cite this story 
because I believe in it ; but I cite it to shew, that the Mishna 
must have been quite an ancient tradition, in order to render it 
possible for a writer to palm off such a story upon the Jewish 
nation ; and that, at all events, the extraordinary retention in a 
mere memoriter way of the whole of the Mishna for a long time^ 
shews to what extent such matters were carried among the 
Jews. 

All the Eastern world exhibits the like phenomena. Let 
the reader call to mind the rhapsodists in hither Asia who so 
long preserved Homer, while they sung him ; or the innumera- 
ble story-tellers of the East, who will entertain their employers, 
by reciting memoriter many more narrations than the TTiousand 
and One contains. Among all nations, m earlier ages, such 
practices existed to a wide extent, where there was any cultiva- 
tion of mind. 

There is nothing strange then in the fact, that those who sat 
daily at the feet of Jesus for more than three years, should have 
remembered to a wide extent his sayings and doings ; nothing 
strange in the fact, that when they reduced the account of these 
things to writing, there should have been so many striking coin- 



328 Genuineness of the Oospek. [Apbil 

cidences between different writings. Yet, with all these coinci- 
dences, it is perfectly natural to suppose, that there must have 
been peculiarities appropriate to each individual Evangelist, as 
to his mode of viewing each subject, his method of stating it, and 
the extent of what was comprised in his account. Such is the 
fact beyond all doubt. On the ground that inspiration is fully 
credited in each case, this would make no important difference 
in respect to diversities. The Greek and Roman writers do 
not exhibit more striking discrepancies of style and modes of re- 
presentation, than those which are apparent in both the Old 
Testament and the New. 

Mr. Norton endeavours, on p. cclxx. seq., to account for the 
occasional verbal agreement between Mark and Luke, by the 
supposition that the Gospel was more usually preached in the 
Greek language, particularly at Jerusalem, where was always a 
concourse of foreign Jews, who spoke that language and proba- 
bly would not have well understood the Hebrew. The words 
-of the. Saviour being often stated in the Greek language, would 
be remembered by those who often heard them, and repeated 
in like manner, in many respects, by those from whom Mark 
and Luke obtained information. 

But here a difficulty occurs in regard to the occasional 5onte- 
ness of Matthew's Gospel also. Mr. Norton, as we have seen, 
supposes this to have been originally written in Hebrew. The 
translator of this Hebrew to Greek, then, as he here maintains, 
when he came to passages parallel in sentiment with some pas- 
sages in Mark and Luke, instead of making a simple and direct 
version of his original, expressed the sentiment oi it in the lan- 
guage of one or both of the two latter Evangelists. Of course, 
he supposes the translator to have had the Gospels of Mark and 
Luke before him. 

There is another point in respect to thb similarity, which 
must be exhibited in Mr. Norton's own language, in order to do 
justice to him. 

But theie is, further, a remaikable phenomenon in the verbal co- 
incidences between the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospels 
of Mark and Luke, which shows that the translator of Matthew used 
those Gospels in a particular manner. Throughout the matter com- 
mon to (dl three Gospels^ his rendering is, witii veiy trifling excep- 
tions, never coincident with the words of Luke, except in passages 
where there was a previous verbal coincidence between Luke and 
Mark ; while in the matter common only to Matthew and Luke, he 



1838.] Oenuineness of the Oaspels. 5229 

Qften adopts the words of the latter. The obvious sc^ution of this 
fact is, that the translator, in his renderings, did not rely merely up- 
on his general recollection of the phraseology of Mark and Luke, 
but wrote with their Gospels open before him ; and that, finding the 
correspondence between the language of his original and that of 
Mark much sreater than between it and that of Luke, he used the 
Gospel of ^&rk alone so far as it contained the same matter, and 
had recourse to that of Luke only when Mark failed him. Thus, in 
the matter common to all three, he agrees with Luke only acciden- 
tally, that is, where there was a previous agreement between Luke 
and Mark; pp. clxxii. seq. 

In the next paragraph he states, that on the supposition that 
Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew, the verbal agreement of 
bis Greek Gospel can be accounted for in no other way than 
this. A more important conclusion still he deduces from 
the alleged coincidence of agreement with Luke as stated above, 
where the latter agrees with Mark in cases of matter common 
to both — the conclusion namely, that Matthew's Gospel must 
have been originally written in Hebrew, because such a phenom- 
enon in respect to coincidence can be accounted for in no other 
way, than by supposing it to have been occasioned by the man- 
ner in which the translator performed his work. Where Mark 
and Luke exhibit the same matter, the translator of Matthew, 
it is assumed, followed Mark ; and the coincidence of Luke in 
such a c^e is accidental, or (in other words) springs merely 
from his having accorded with Mark in his expressions. Of 
coarse, then, where Luke differs from Mark, there the transla- 
tor of Matthew follows the latter, and consequently disagrees 
with Luke; but where Luke and Matthew alone exhibit narra- 
tions of any particular thing, there the translator of Matthew re- 
sorted to Luke as his model, and there the resemblance between 
them is striking. 

Mr. Norton thinks that this discovery of the manner in which 
Matthew harmonizes with Mark, in the way of preference to 
Luke, and then with Luke where Mark fails him, is ^^ one of 
the most important of all the explanations that have been given 
of the phenomena of the correspondencies among the Gospels." 
He deems it due, therefore, to Bishop Marsh, to acknowledge 
him as the author of this discovery, lest he should be thought to 
arrogate to himself the credit arising from so important a dis- 
covery, which is due to the Bishop. 

It seems not a little strange however to me, that Mr. Norton, 

Vol. XL No. 30. 42 



390 Genuineness of the Gaspeb. [Aprii* 

who has been so keeD-sighted in spying out the faults and enors 
of the wonderful conceit about an Origifiol GojpeZ, as the grand 
menstruum by which all difficulties were to be solved, should 
have given so easy credence to the Bishop of Peterborough in 
the present case. I can explain it only by the supposition, that 
be saw in this theory, as he says, a conclusive reason in favour 
of an original Hebrew Gospel, and then found decisive evidences 
of the work of a translator and of the manner of that work. 

1 should begin the examination of this theor}', in case I felt at 
liberty now to go fully into it, by a denial of the main hciy viz., 
that in cases where all three of the Evangelists relate the same 
occurrence and Luke differs from Matthew, Matthew, i. e. the 
translator of Matthew, attaches himself to Mark and agrees with 
him. Nothing is like facts in such a case ; but to them I must 
briefly refer the reader, not thinking it meet here to produce the 
Greek originals at full length. I refer him, however, to the 
pages in Newcome's Greek Harmony, the second edition re- 
cently published, where these originals are spread out to his e3re, 
and be can instantly determine whether my statement is correct. 

Compare then, (1) Matt. 17: 18 with the latter part of 
Luke 9: 42 and Mark 9: 25. (Harm. p. 105.) 

Here Matthew, although discrepant in some respects firom 
both of the other Evangelists, is plainly much nearer in matter 
and manner to Luke than he is to Mark. 

(2) Matt. 17: S2 with Mark 9: 31 and Luke 9: 44. (Harm, 
p. 106.) 

Here Luke and Matthew exhibit fiiXXu nagadiioa-&ah while 
Mark has simply nagadldotai. 

(3) Matt. 22: 27 with Mark 12: 22 and Luke 20:32. 
(Harm. p. 156.) 

In this case Matthew and Luke exhibit vartgov ii nurtav^ 
while Mark has iaxatt] navtotv, 

(4) Matt. 26: 16 with Mark 14: 11 and Luke 22: 6. (Harm, 
p. 172.) 

Here Matthew and Luke have iU^H tunatglop ; while Mark 
says : fCv^ti nmg tvxalgatQ. 

(5) Matt. 27: 59 with Mark 15: 46 and Luke 23: 53. 
(Harm. p. 207.) 

Here Matthew and Luke : iv^tvXipp avEO (sc. a£fia Vi^oov) 
cwdovk; while Mark says : IvtlXfjoi r^ a$vd6vi. 

(6) Matt. 28 : 6 with Mark 16: 6 and Luke 24 : 6. (Harm, 
p. 210.) 



1838.] Gtnmneneu of the Oospeb. 331 

Here Matthew and Luke say : Ov% fatip £de^ ny^Q^n y^Qf 
(Luke, aU' nyh^n) * while Mark says : vy*g^n» ovx loiiv idi. 

These examples of discrepancy I have ttJcen from De Wette's 
Introduction to the New Testament, ^ 80, Note a. With this 
meagre list he seems to rest satisfied, in opposing the view of 
Bishop Marsh, which is presented above and which is so much 
applauded by Mr. Norton. My first impression on examining 
this list was, that it must be a rare case indeed in which Mat* 
tbew could be found to agree with the diction of Luke, while 
the example of Mark was also before him. So at least De 
Wette would seem to have thought, when be gave to his read- 
ers such a list of coincidences with Matthew, seemingly the re- 
sult of comparison throughout the parallel passages of the three 
first Gospels. The list is introduced into the midst of statements 
that wear an imposing appearance of great labour and diligence, 
in the examination of all the coincidences and discrepancies of 
the Gospels. 

But I had learned, many years since, to believe that De 
Wette, with all his talent and learning (and he has much of 
both), is a very hasty, and not unfrequently a very inaccurate 
writer, and is not always to be depended on where long continued 
and patient research must be made. It was' a matter of course, 
therefore, for me to resort to the Greek Harmony, and there, to 
my surprise, after reading such statements in Bishop Marsh, 
Mr. Norton, and De Wette, I found, without any pains-taking, 
in every section which I investigated merely as it occurred on 
opening the book, facts which shew how utterly groundless this 
great discovery of my Lord of Peterborough is. Will the read- 
er have patience while I present him with a few examples of 
what a few hours' diligent research brought under my notice ? 
The point to be settled here, (and this is my apology for dwell- 
ing upon it), is of more importance than every one at first view 
w3l be ready to suppose. 

In the very first instance of triplex harmony that occurs in 
the Gospels, there are some striking discrepancies in the mode 
of narration, in which Matthew follows^ (if I may be allowed 
thb word merely for brevity's sake, for I hold Matthew to have 
been entirely an original writer), Luke instead of Mark. 

(a) Compare Matt. 3: 3 with Mark 1: 2, 3 and Luke 3: 4« 
(Harm. p. 12.) 

Here, after the words Isaiah the praphety common to all 
three of the Evangelists, Matthew and Luke use yyorrog, and 



33S GenuinenesB of the GospeU. [April 

then quote a passage from the Old Testament, as it stands in 
the Septuagint (Is. 40: 3), with the exception that instead of 
tov Otov lifAciif there at the close, the two Evangelists both 
read avioS. But here Mark, after the words Isaiah the pro^ 
phet, inserts a passage from Malachi 3: I, and then proceeds 
with the quotation from Isaiah, as in the other Evangelists. 
Moreover be omits the word Xtryot^tog, and in its stead employs 
yf^ganrai, 

(b) Matt. 3: II, compare with IMark 1 : 7, 8 and Luke 3: 16. 
(Harm. p. 13.) 

Here Matthew and Luke employ ^antl^oi ; but Mark has 
ifianitoi, Matthew and Luke say, avrog vftag pantiasi h 
nvevfittti ayica xai nvgl; but Mark says, avrog Si fiunriaH v^ig 
iv nPtvfiUTi dyio), differing in some respects as to manner, order, 
and matter. 

(c) Matt. 9: 5 with Mark 2: 9 and Luke 5: 23. (Harm; 
p. 32.) 

Here, after W . . . ivxondu^ov ; tlnuv ' Matthew and Luke 
immediately subjoin : aftmptai aov (aoi) ai afiagtiai; ij nnttw 
"JSynpai »at nigmaw ; but Mark inserts teji 7io^aAi;rix(^ after 
the first (iniiv, and for the last phrase he hzs^Eytigif igop aov 
top Hgipfiatopf Hal nfgmaru ; 

(d) Matt. 12: 1 with Mark 2: 23 and Luke 6: I. (Ham* 
p. 36.) 

Matthew says, ol fia^n^al . . . tiglapto rlXXnv oraxvmg jeof 
ia&Uv; Luke, eitXXop .... tovg ataxvag, xal ^a-d-pop; while 
Mark says, tjp^aPTO ol fAaOtitat avzovidop noulp xikloptf^ tovQ 
oxaxvag, wholly omitting ijaOiov, 

And again in the next succeeding verses, Matthew and Luke^ 
ovH i^eati noulv ip aa/?/?arq) («V zo7g aafifiaaij, while Mark 
has ti noiovatp ip roTg adfifiaaip o ovx t^toti. 

(e) Matt. 12 : 4 ^ith Mark 2 : 26 and Luke 6 : 4. (Harm. 
P-^'T.) 

Here Matthew and Luke, tiaijX^fv ng tov ohop tov &sov, 
nal toifg Sgtovg Tfjg ngo^f'afmg tifayev {fkapi) ; but Mark inserts 
after ^iov the words iul *^fiia&ap tov aQxngioig, 

(/) Matt. 12: 13 with Mark 3: 5 and Luke 6: 10. (Harm, 
p. 38.) 

Rejecting the evidently spurious readings here, Matthew 
savs, Hal dnoxateata&tj vyttjg dg i] akktj, but Luke adds fj Xiig 
ewtov after dnouatwrdt^fi and omits vyi^g (according to the 



1888.] Gemnnenea ofth€ Goipeb. 333 

corrected text) ; while Mark simply says, inonauata^fi 19 x^ig 
avtov^ omitting wholly the o!^ 9/ alXti, 

(g) Matt. 12: 25 with Mark 3: 24 and Luke 11: 17. (Harm, 
p. 53.) 

Matthew and Luke, niaa fiaoilila [div] fug&aOilaa . . . i^^ti" 
fiovtaii but Mark, iw fiaaUiia . • . fugioi^^ ov dwutmi ata- 

(A) Matt. 13 : 8 with Mark 4 : 7 and Luke 8 : 7. (Harm, 
p. 62.) 

Matthew and Luke, ujunviiop ; Mark, avpinp^iai^. 

(i) Matt. 13: 10 with Mark 4: 10 and Luke 8: 9. (Harm, 
p. 62.) 

Matthew and Luke, ol fiadtixal\ Mark, ol mgl uiiow. 

(j) Matt. 19: 21 with Mark 10: 21 and Luke 18: 22. (Harm, 
p. 137.) 

Here Matthew and Luke, aaokovdei fio$ jc. r. A. ; while 
Mark adds to this, agas roV otavgow^ and then proceeds like the 
othecs. 

{Ic) Matt. 21: 23 with Mark 11: 28 and Luke 20: 2. (Harm, 
p. 150.^ 

Matthew and Luke, ttiv i^ovoUv taixnv ». '• A. ; Mark 
adds ipa twta noi^g, and then proceeds as the others. In 
the next verses Matthew and Luke have igtatiiawf and Mark 
in$gtotiicm, 

(/) Matt. 24: 7 with Mark 13: 8 and Luke 21: 11. (Harm, 
p. 163.) 

Matthew and Luke, fooviM kifiol %al Xoiftoi ; Mark, ltf*ol 
KAJ zctgaxaL 

(m) Matt. 24 : 29 with Mark 13 : 25 and Luke 21 : 86. 
(Harm. p. 165.) 

Matthew and Luke,ai dvmfAi$g tatpovgapoivaiikiv^iiaowtai; 
Mark, ai dvyaiuig ai iw rolg ovgavotg aaktvOijooviat, 

But I withheld my hand. I have a number of other exam- 
ples marked, the fruit of a few hours search, and of a like tenor 
with those produced above. 

It is in vain for Mr. Norton to allege, in reply to these in- 
stances, that they are of little consequence as to the •seme. I 
admit this most fully ; and I must admit it, and so must he, in 
other innumerable cases of discrepancy as to diction between 
the di&rent Evangelists. But the simple question b, whether, 
in case of coincidence as to matter between the first three Gotr 
pels, Matthew has alwayi conformed to the diction of Maifc ia 



334 Oetmtneneu of the Ootpds. [Amis 

preference to that of Luke, where conformity to either, on hb 
part, is at all exhibited. The result of the above examination 
IS, that there is no correctness in the allegation that he has. 

I will not say that Matthew in the case supposed, does not 
oftener agree with Marie than Luke, where the two latter daSkr 
from each other ; but my examination has led me in some good 
measure to dbtrust even so much as this. It happeped, I pre- 
sume, to Bishop Marsh and Mr. Norton, that in their compari- 
sons, pursued perhaps to quite a moderate extent, Matthew ap» 
peared to agnse mostly, (Bishop Marsh says entirely)^ with 
Mark. But it b impossible to pursue this investigation to any 
great length, and yet retain the belief that such is the exclusive, 
or (I would even venture to say) the habitual fact. I have 
opened my Greek Harmony at random throughout ; and not 
one page have I any where examined, without finding facts to 
contradict the theory of Bishop Marsh and Mr. Norton. It 
is impossible for me to believe, therefore, that a more extennve 
examination still will not produce more overwhelmmg tesUmony 
against it. 

One other sensation, or persuasion (if this be abetter name), 
has been produced in a manner that I shall never forget ; and 
this is a deep and thorough feeling, that the discrepancies of 
style and manner of expression in the Evangelists so immeasu- 
rably exceed the identities, that there is not the least proba- 
bility that they copied each other, or copied any common doc- 
uments. These diversities, indeed, are not such as can well 
be presented on paper. They can be learned only by being 
seen and felt. The reader must take up his Greek Harmony, 
and spend a few hours in making the most minute comparisons ; 
and when he has done this, I think I can venture to say, that 
he never again will open his ears to any charge of plagiarism^ 
or of mere labour like that of copyists or redactors^ made against 
the Evangelists. In the parts where the resemblance between 
them is strongest of all, the diversity b still such as to leave not 
the least doubt on my mind of composition original and inde- 
pendent. 

The conviction that such b the case springs from the nature 
of the diversities in question. No earthly motive can be as- 
signed for them, in case either or all of the writers were plagia- 
rists or oopybts. They are not corrections^ nor emendations^ 
nor addenda; they concern neither the rhetoric nor the sense 
of the passages in which they stand. They are evidently the 



i888«] Oetwinenett of tk€ Goipeb. 335 

simple difierences in modes of expression which are personal 
and inbredy if not inborn ; and difierences like to these, are 
always found, at all times and in all acres, between the modes 
of expression in different mdividuals. 

Were I not afraid of wearying out the reader, I would now 
proceed to show how little of correctness there is in the other 
part of Mr. Norton's theory and that of Bishop Marsh, in rela- 
tion to the general subject before us, viz., that Matthew and 
Luke &11 into striking coincidences, where they are the only 
two narrators. 

Let the reader turn to p. 16 of the Greek Harmony, and 
compare the minute history of the temptation of the Saviour, in 
the two Evangelists. Let him notice not only the difference 
in style and manner of these narrations, but also the fact that 
even the order of two of the cases of temptation is reversed in 
one of these historians. 

Let him next turn to the Sermon on the Mount (p. 40 seq.) 
and see what striking diversities there are in the narrations 
there. Then let him cast his eye on the history of the healing 
of the Centurion's servant, p. 47 ; where the diversity is so 
great, that even contradiction has been not unfrequently alleged 
agamst it. Go next to the conference between Jesus and some 
of John's disciples (p. 49), and, if we except the words of Jesus 
as repeated by both Evangelists, bow little of exact coincidence 
shall we find ! And thus might I proceed until I should point 
out every section of the Gospel history which is peculiar to these 
two writers. The whole amount, however, is but compara- 
tively small. 

I do not, therefore, and I cannot, after such an examination 
as I have made, admit at all the statements in question of Bish- 
op Marsh and Mr. Norton. Facts do not support them. Of 
course I cannot admit that any of the deductions which Mr. 
Norton draws from them, are at all substantiated on this ground. 

I have only one more remark to make on this already pro- 
tracted topic. This is, that the very reasoning which Mr. Nor- 
ton has employed with so much power and success in over- 
throwing the general theory of a jProtevangeliumy may be em- 
ployed against his own view of what the Greek translator of 
Matthew must be supposed to have done. Nothbg can be 
more certam to mv mind, than that the characteristics of the 
present Gospel of"^ Matthew do not admit of the idea, that a 
translator reduced thb book to its present form, by partly adopt- 



386 Oenuheness of the OoipeU. [April 

ing Mark, partly leaning upon Luke, and then again depencfing 
on himself. My own belief as to the style of the book, is, that 
it is such as not even to admit the supposition of its being a 
version at all. But of this more in its proper place. 

As to some other allegations made by Bishop Marsh, and 
stated by Mr. Norton in a Note on p. clxxiv., viz., that the 
|7ropor^u>na7 coincidence is greater between Matthew and Luke, 
when they are the sole narrators, than exists elsewhere in case 
all three are the narrators ; that in those portions of Matthew's 
Gospel which " occupy different places" from the correspond- 
ing ones in Mark, there is no verbal coincidence between them ; 
and that in portions common only to Mark and Luke there are 
but two instances of verbal agreement between them ; Mr. Nor- 
ton himself doubts the first and last. I can only add here, that 
I do not think there is any good foundation for either of the 
three assertions ; and if in any particular case the facts be as 
stated, they arise from a cause very different from that stated by 
the Bishop. 

Mr. Norton next goes into an examination of the quesiio vex* 
ata respecting the discrepancies in the chronoheical order of 
events as stated by the Evangelists. He speaks ramiliarly here, 
as I observe with regret, of mistakes and misarrangements d 
Luke and Mark, in some well known cases where they difier 
from Matthew in the respect just mentioned. The general 
principle for solving the difficulty in question Mr. Norton thinks 
to be, the fact that Luke and Mark only heard oral accotmts of 
the words and deeds of Jesus, where like things were naturally 
often grouped together ; while Matthew, being an eye and ear- 
witness of the whole, followed an arrangement that comports 
with the order in which every thing actually took place. 

But how, I ask, comes it on this ground, that Matthew, more 
than any other Evangelist, should have grouped together dis- 
courses evidently delivered at different tiroes ? For example ; 
the parables contained in chap. xiii. of his Gospel. According 
to many critics, the Sermon on the Mount, Matt, v — vii., is 
made up in the same way ; and although I doubt this, yet I 
ciannot but admit that in many cases Matthew has grouped 
events in a matter not usual in the other Gospels. The con- 
trary of this must have happened, if Mr. Norton is right in his 
conjectures. 

My own apprehension of this whole matter is indeed quite 
different, it waM seem, from that of Mr. Norton. The first 



1838.] Genuimiiess of tliQ Gospels. 337 

question which presents itself to my mind^ in the investigation 
of this subject, is, whether the Evangelists ever intended to give 
a narration of events in the life of Jesus, in such a manner (as 
to arrangement) as that in which biographical narrations are 
mostly conducted in modern times, i. e. following the chronoh- 
gical series of events ? That they did not design this, I am fully 
persuaded, from the fact that it would have been easy to ac- 
complish such a task at the time when the Gospels were writ- 
ten, inasmuch as many eye-witnesses, and apostles among these, 
were still living. But they were more occupied with the say- 
ings and doings of Jesus, than with the exact order of them. 

Why need this be accounted strange ? There are four books 
extant, respecting the sayings and doings of the greatest moral 
philosopher that the heathen world has ever produced ; and 
these were written too by a consummate master of rhetoric and 
history ; yet these partake, in no degree, of a regular and cbro- 
oological arrangement. I refer to the Memorabilia of Xeno- 
phon. Would it add any thing important to this peculiarly 
mteresting book, if it were all digested according to the rules of 
chronology ? I think every discerning reader will say : Nothing. 

Such then was the fashion, if any please so to name it, of 
writing in ancient times, among men of the most cultivated 
minds and enlightened understanding. Should this offend us, 
when we meet with it among the Jewish writers ? 

There are, indeed, some circumstances in every case of this 
nature, which will not bear an arrangement that is not chronolo- 
gical. Such are the occurrences of birth and early life, and also 
of death. It could be only a perverted taste, which would in- 
termingle these with an account of what was done and said in 
the midst of active life. But when the period of action is so 
short as that of Jesus — only about three and a half years-— 
when this was a period of unintermitted preaching and benevo- 
lent action and miraculous cures ; when an account of this is 
^ven simply for a religious and moral purpose ; when nothing 
of the effect to be produced by the narration depends on exact 
chronological arrangement, but simply on the evidence and truth 
of facts themselves ; and particularly when all these circum- 
stances meet and combine in any particular case ; why should 
we be stumbled by the fact, that a narration is not in keeping 
with our modem and occidental maxims of criticism with re- 
spect to writing biography. 

That Matthew naturally followed the general tenor of ev^ts 

Vol. XI. No. 30. 43 



338 Genuineness of the Gospels. [Afril 

as they occurred, may certainly be admitted ; or rather, it shoald 
be admitted, for it seems to be quite probable that be did. 
Having been present as an eye and ear-witness, nothing would 
be easier than for him to present the great outlines of facts ars 
they originally succeeded each other. Yet even he, in some 
cases where be evidently groups things of a like kind, did not 
think it at all important to be bound in chronological chains. 
He has narrated in a free, and also in a natural, manner. 

As to Luke and Mark, I suppose it will not be now contended 
that either of them were eye or ear-witnesses. Their condi- 
tion, then, was evidently different from that of Matthew, to 
whom a clue had naturally been ^jven by the circumstances in 
which he had been placed. They had heard a multitude of 
accounts respecting the life and actions of the Saviour, many 
more, no doubt, than those which they have recorded ; out of 
these they were to choose ; and unless chronological order had 
been before their minds as an important circumstance, one could 
not expect they would be solicitious to preserve it in respect to 
minute circumstances. Nothing depended on it, in regard to 
the objects which they laboured to accomplish. They differ, 
therefore, as we might naturally suppose, not only from Mat- 
thew in some respects, as to the order of events, but also from 
each other. (See Mr. Norton's Addenda, p. cxii. in the Note 
at the bottom.) 

I would appeal now to the candour of every considerate 
reader, and ask him, whether, in such a case as that before us, 
where it would have been easy for each writer, had he deemed 
it to be of any importance to his design, to make such bquiries 
as would produce the same order in all — whether it does not 
lie upon the very face of the compositions before us, that par- 
ticular and minute chronological order was not at all a matter of 
design? 

[f this be conceded, then I would ask, whether the alleged 
mistakes, or contradictions , or misarrangements, of the writers 
in Question, in regard to the point before us, can properly be 
spoken of as being plmn and certain ? If a writer has placed 
events out of the actual order in which they occurred, and for 

Purposes satisfactory to his own mind ; and if, at the same time, 
e made it no object to follow chronological order ; where is 
fais mistake in this matter ? What seems now to be plain is, that 
the Evangelists had not the matter of chronology in their eye, 
in any other manner than the general one stated above ; and 



1838.] Oenuinene$$ of the Oospeh. 339 

that even Matthew himself, who has adhered more closely to it 
thantheothers, did so simply OD the ground that his circumstances 
more naturally led him to do so, and not because it was a mat- 
ter of special design on his part. 

Mr. Norton has gone into a long disquisition in relation to 
some of the narrations of Luke, which he deems to be " mis- 
placed," and to be deprived of more or less of their appropriate 
meaning by this circumstance. It would occupy too much 
room here to follow him through these remarks. While they 
shew that he has vigorously applied his mind to the subjects 
discussed, many of his exegetical remarks will not, so far as I 
am able to judge, give satisfaction to some of his exegetical rea- 
ders. I must regard most of this discussion as unnecessary, be- 
cause my views on the subject of chronological arrangement are 
so widely different, as it would seem, from those which he 
entertains. 

Note E. is a long and able one, on the question, whether Jus- 
tin Martyr has actually quoted our canonical Gospel ? a subject 
already discussed at some length in the text ol his book, but 
here more particularly and minutely examined. Mr. Norton 
gives us many specimens here of Justin's quotations, with a 
comparison of the Gospels from which be quotes ; also of his 
quotations from the Septuagint ; of his repeated quotations of 
the same passages in the Gospels ; and of coincidences between 
him and the Greek text of Matthew, where Matthew deviates 
in his quotations from the Septuagint. To these the author has 
added remarks on the mode of quoting Scripture generally 
among the ancient Fathers of the church ; ana finally he has 
examined the new hypothesis of Credner, viz., that Justin used 
the Oospel of Peter as the source of his quotations. The ob- 
jections whk;h he makes to Credner's views are certainly ol 
much weight ; nor can I deem it possible, that Credner should 
render the main propositions comprised in his theory probable 
to the mind of any impartial critic well versed in the literature 
and criticism of the early ages of Christianity. 

Mr. Norton will not complain that his book has been treated 
with neglect, and brought before the public as worth only a 

rassing and hasty notice. He will rather complain, I fear, that 
have almost interfered with his rights as an author, in extract- 
ing so largely from it. But I can assui'e the reader of this re- 
view, that Mr. Norton's book contains a great many passages 
which are excellent, that I have not thought proper to copy ; 



340 Oenidneneii of the OorptU. [ Apkii# 

and there are very cogent reasons, therefore, why he should 
procure and read the whole book. 

Mr. Norton will also perceive, thai widely as I suppose my- 
self to differ from him in regard to some points of theology^ 
and perhaps even of criticism, but certainly of exegesis, yet [ 
am not disposed in any measure to underrate his efforts on the 
common ground in which we are agreed. He has achieved a 
service which was very important in the present state of criti- 
cism and of skepticism. 

As I have but a very moderate appetite for heresy4iunt]agy 
so 1 have not endeavoured to record every expression in Mr. 
Norton's book, which indicates a mode of thinking difierent 
from that which is generally called, and which I believe to be, 
orthodox. I fear that Mr. Norton rejects altogether the idea of 
inspiration in respect to the Gospels. I hope it is not so ; but 
he sometimes speaks in such a way, that the belief of this is 
forced upon me. He tells us of things " erroneously referred 
by Mark ;" that ** Luke coirfounded the discourse ; " that he 
"did not sufBciently discriminate" certain things; that he 
" misplaced " the words of John on a certain occasion ; that he 
" misplaced " another discourse of the Saviour ; that he " mis- 
apprehended " his meaning on another occasion ; that Lnke i. ii. 
has a "fabulous hue," and that " fiction and miracle are blend- 
ed " there. On p. clxx. he gives an account, in a Note, of 
the manner in which Paul became informed of the truths of 
Christianity, in which he does not even advert to the fact re- 
peatedly asserted by Paul, that the Saviour had appeared to 
him and had instructed him, and that on this very ground no 
apostle could claim a precedence over him. From a few things 
of this nature in the work before us, I am reluctantly obliged to 
believe, that the author does not admit the idea of inspiration 
in respect to the Gospels. He evidently views them as credibh 
books, and worthy of all acceptation ; with the exception of 
some few passages which he deems to be spurious, but which I 
shall not particularize, since they have already been noted in 
the preceeding pages. 

It is a matter of sincere regret to me, that such passages as 
the above should be found in a work the tone and temper of 
which, at large, are truly worthy of imitation. The author 
seems to have set out with the full design not to give unnecessary 
offence to any class of his readers, and to present to the public 
a specimen of writing similar in its tone and manner to that of 



1838.] Genumeness of tht Oospels. 341 

Lardner. He should have foil credit for this. And if now 
and then he has expressed himself without a recollection of this 
his general design, it would be foolish in the reader to reject the 
mass of good there is in the book, because of the few things^ 
of this kind which he may deem to be blemishes. I indulge 
the hope, that when this book comes to a second edition^ (and 
if it meet its just deserts it certainly will), the author will sacri- 
fice even the few remnants of his peculiar theology, which now 
and then gleam upon us, to the hope and prospect of the great- 
er good which may be evidently achieved by his book in case 
they are omitted. To his own individual sentiments he of 
couise mast have a right, which none but his IVIaker can lawful- 
ly call in question. But it is not necessary that he should in- 
sist on the declaration of them in this valuable book, and 
especially it is unnecessary to declare them on a point, where, 
if he believes as I fear he does, the conviction that the Gos- 
pels are genuine would add little or nothhig to the obligation 
which the world at large would feel, to admit them as their Lex 
JSkprema in all cases of moral action. 

1 should decline the task, if it were in any way assigned to 
cne, of undertaking to shew, that minds of a certain cast might 
or might not truly and smcerely believe in the Gospels, and re- 
<seive them as the rule of faith and practice, although they re- 
jected the idea that these Gospels were composed by writer* 
under the influence of divine inspiration. I suppose it might 
be rendered probable to an enlightened mind, that the actual 
admission of the essential truths of the Gospel, as a rule of &ith 
and practice, would belong to the substance of iaith ; a belief 
as to the manner in which the books had originated which pre- 
sented these truths, would certainly be only a secondary ingre- 
<lient in faith, when placed at its highest just estimation. Mr. 
Norton may say, periiaps, and it seems probable to me that he 
would say, that he admits the first, whUe he doubts about the 
last. But still, with all the respect that I cheerfully accord to 
the serious manner in which he presents and views the Gospels, 
I cannot help entertaining the most serious doubts, whether 
general skepticism, or rather practical infidelity, would not at 
last be the result of inculcating principles such as he holds, in 
regard to the authority, or rather I should say, perhaps, the 
origin of our sacred books. I do not take upon myself to de- 
termine, how minds like Mr. Norton's might decide respecting 
the authority of the Crospels, when they had been trained and 



d42 Oenuheness oftke Ootpels. [April 

•chastened in the school of moral philosophy and in all the dis- 
•c^pline of a theological school ; but it is unnecessary to decide 
xhis, because the proportion of men in our community who are 
xbus trained is so small. One thing, however, we may safely 
AVer, viz., that any mere conviction of the genuineness of the 
gospels — any mere intellectual admission that they are correct 
and credible accounts of the life and doctrines of the Saviour — 
can and will never move the mass of men to yield to their aur 
iharity. Does not Mr. Norton see, that this last point is so 
.necessary, that all the rest being gained, nothing important is 
gained unless this follow as a sequent to the others ? But ta- 
king men as they are, with all that worldly spirit and all those 
desires of carnal indulgence which they possess and which they 
are for the most part heartily set upon gratifying, is there (hu- 
manly speaking) any chance to make real practical converts to 
Christianity, when the Scriptures are divested of divine author- 
ity, and made to extend no further than fallible human author- 
ity can go ? The hope of converting a sinful world on such 
grounds, does appear to me absolutely desperate. Without 
rundertaking positively to decide, what a few minds trained 
like that of Mr. Norton might possibly admit, and how they 
jnight be influenced, can I hesitate to believe, that when the 
jdivine authority of the Gospels is given up, all is given up 
which gives them (if I may so speak) any chance oi success in 
s, world like this ? 

Mr. Norton needs not to be informed, that theoretical be- 
lievers are not such as the apostle James thinks ought to be 
ranked among Christians, whose faith is well-anchored. Im- 
.portant as his own book is, therefore, (and he must see that I 
.deem it to be a performance of great merit in many respects, 
and deserving of very general attention), yet the community 
might go where his performance would carry them, and not be 
•any thing more than theoretical believers. What is the next 
and the ultimate appeal then ? Mr. Norton does not even pre- 
tend to be an authority. And if his readers should lay down 
his book^ with a conviction that his positions are well sustained, 
■and still be inclined to ask, as many of them doubtless will ask : 
Why am I obliged to receive the gospels as my rule of faith 
jmd practice ? what other answer can be given on Mr. Norton's 
.ground^ than that they have the honest opinion of fallible men 
respecting the life and doctrines of Jesas Christ, and therefore 
they ought to adopt it ? If now such readers should rejoin 



1838.] Oenuineness of the Oospels, 34^** 

and say to Mr. Norton ; We have indeed their opinion or their 
account of these matters ; but inasmuch as you admit that they 
have ''misapprehended" some things, "confounded" others^ 
** misplaced some, and " not sufficiently discriminated" in re- 
spect to others ; while you even admit that they have " blend- 
ed fable and fiction together ;" how can we, who are not, like 
you, well-read critics, and have no knowledge of the original 
Scriptures, in any way distinguish between the cases which you 
thus present to our view, and those where you admit that mere 
and simple facts and truths are stated ? — if, I say, such ques- 
tions should be asked, (and they certainly will be), then will 
Mr. Norton tell us what answer is to be given that will " stop* 
the mouths of such gainsayers ?" I know of none. Where 
Mr. Norton doubts, he can be appealed to in many ways which 
are closed up with regard to such individuals as I have just 
described. But when they doubt, even after reading his book, 
whether to give their practical assent to Christianity, how are 
they to be made to feel the awful responsibility under which 
they place themselves by rejecting the word of the living God ? 

But I am not writing against Mr. Norton's theology, nor com-^ 
posing a polemical essay against skepticism. I will therefore de- 
sist. The importance of the subject ; the attitude in which Mr. 
Norton's remarks have placed it ; and the obligation which lies 
upon every conscientious reviewer not to conceal things in a work 
l!he tendency of which he believes will be exceedingly hazard- 
ous ; have induced me to say thus much. I am sure Mr. Nor- 
ton, with his desires of canvassing all subjects, and with his 
strenuous sentiments as it respects liberty to speak our opinions, 
will neither inisconstrue nor take amiss what I have now said. 

I have only to add, that the book is printed throughout with 
great correctness and elegance. A small number of mistakes 
in the typographical execution, an attentive perusal of the 
whole has discovered; but they are too trifling to deserve 
mention. The press at Cambridge has few rivals indeed in 
this country, as to the correctness with which it executes its 
publications* 



344 ThAi Head of the Churdi, [Apbil 



ARTICLE II. 

The Head of the Church, Head over all things ; il- 
lustrated BT Analogies between Nature, Providence, 
and Grace. 

Bj W. S. Tjlor, ProfaMor orLftoguafea, Amherai Cullege. 

The Head of the church is likewise ^' head over all things" 
— sovereign alike in the kingdom of nature, the kingdom of 
providence, and the kingdom of grace. He is ^^ Qod over oS" 
— the God of nature, of providence, and of grace. This is evi- 
dently a doctrine of revelation^ directly asserted in many passa- 
ges,* and clearly implied in the whole tenor of Scripture. 

It is my present design to show, that reason teaches the same 
doctrine — ^that a rational and candid examination and compari- 
son of the kingdoms of nature, providence and grace will lead 
us to the conclusion, that they have the same head. My ar- 
guments will be drawn from Analogy ^ ^' that powerful engine, 
which" as has been well said, '^ in the mind oi a Newton, dis- 
covered to us the laws of all other worids, and in that of Co- 
lumbus, put us in full possession of our own ;" and which, it 
might have been added, in the mind of a Butler disclosed to us 
the indissoluble ties, that pervade the economy of the natural 
and the spiritual worlds. The analogies which run through 
nature, providence and grace, are such, as if not to establish the 
proposition, yet to create a strong presumption, that they have 
the same head, and are in fact but difierent provinces of the 
same empire — distinct departments of the same government. 

The pnncti^Ze involved in this argument is so fully elucidated 
and so powerfully enforced by Butler in his '^ Analogy," as to 
be familiar to the memory, and convincing to the judgment, of 
every reader of that important work. He has left little for 
those, who come after him, to do, but to gather new instances 
of analogy and thus furnish fresh illustrations of the prmciple 
and additional confirmations of the argument. This field of 
investigation, which Butler merely opened to our view, is as 
boundless as the universe ; its treasures and wonders will be 



• Epli. 1: ^X Rom. 9: 5. 



1838.] Head over all Tilings. 345 

exhausted only when the plan of God's universal government 
is fully developed and perfectly understood. Into this field my 
readers are now invited, with the promise, that if they discover 
nothing new, they shall see something, that cannot fail to be 
interesting to the admiring student of the divine works. 

1. The first analogy, which I shall mention, respects the 
qtudifications for entering into the kingdoms, whether to ex- 
plore, or to enjoy them. In all these alike, the qualifications 
are humUky and faith. 

Without a humble and modest spirit, we are unprepared to 
investigate the question before us. On the outermost walls and 
gates of each of the kingdoms, which we are about to examine 
and compare, on every side is inscribed the motto : " LiCt no 
man enter here, save in the garb of humility." Bacon was the 
first to discover and apply this analogy. ^* The kingdom of 
men founded in science," he says, " is like the kingdom of 
heaven ; no man can enter into it, except in the character of a 
little child." A child-like humility and docility was the key 
by which he opened the vestibule of nature, and in his " Novum 
Organum," he committed the same key into the hands of sub- 
sequent philosophers and commended it to them, as alone ca- 
pable of unlocking every chamber and cloister in the spacious 
temple. It need scarcely be remarked that the same key is 
necessary and adequate to unlock the mysteries of providence 
and of revelation. 

The book of nature, the book of providence, and the book of 
grace are severally dedicated to children. None but those 
who have the simplicity and docility, the humble and inquiring 
disposition of little children are permitted to read them, n 
others make the attempt, they cannot understand, still less relish 
their contents. 

Without a figure, they who would study the system of nature, 
providence or grace, must come disposed and prepared, not to 
determine how things should be, but to inquire how things are; 
not to dogmatize and dictate, but to learn and obey ; not to rea- 
son a priori, but to observe and infer. And they who would 
live happily under either system, must have a contented and 
submissive spirit, and wear the apparel of humility and modesty. 

Faith in its essential elements sustains a relation to each oH 

the three kingdoms akin to that which humility sustains. It is 

the pasnfort for admission. Not a step can be taken in the 

study ofnature or the observation of Providence, any more than 

Vol. XI. No. 30. 44 



346 7%e Head of the Church, [Amu 

in the knowledge of revelation, without a belief in the divine 
veracity — ^in other words a belief that God will fulfil his tacit 
promise by maintaining a uniformity in his laws and plans of 
operation. It confers the right of citizenship. No man can 
be a useful or happy citizen in the kingdom of nature, provi* 
dence, or grace, without combining with the intellectual belief 
just mentioned, a heartfelt confidence in the power, wisdom and 
goodness of the supreme Ruler of the Universe. 

Hence it is, that true science and true religion mutually aid 
each other. Pure Christianity begets the confiding modesty 
yet eager hope of the philosopher ; and sound philosophy fos- 
ters the humility and faith of the Christian. The philoso- 
pher believes any thing with evidence, nothing without ; and so 
does the Christian. The Christian feels himself to be merely 
a humble inquirer at the oracles of God, with no authority to 
dictate, no power to control ; and so does the philosopher. 
The proud and dogmatizing spirit of the old Greek philosophers 
was not more unchristian than it was unphilosophical ; accord- 
ingly their knowledge of nature and providence was as crude as 
their notions of religion. The same spirit as exhibited by tbe 
modem schools of a priori reasoning is not more unphilosophi- 
cal than it is unchristian ; accordingly while most philosophers 
of the observing school have been believers in revelation, skep- 
ticism has made sad havoc among those of the school of reason- 
ers a priori. The humble, inquiring and believing philosophy 
of Socrates made him almost a Christian without a revelation. 
The proud, dictating and dogmatizing philosophy of the Ger- 
man Neologist makes him an infidel in spite of revelation. We 
know not, whether the modesty of Newton partakes more 
largely of true religion or of sound philosophy. We know that 
Voltaire in his arrogance and conceit was neither a philosopher 
nor a Christian. The humble believer, — he it is in every age, 
that discovers tbe truths, beholds the wonders, and enjoys the 
blessings, of nature, providence and grace — he alone possesses 
the clue, that will conduct him through the labyrinth of the 
divine works. To return to the figure, with which this head 
was introduced, humility and faith, not exactly in their Christian 
forms but in their essential elements, are the passports for admis- 
sion, and the qualifications for citizenship alike in the kingdom 
of nature, the kingdom of providence, and the kingdom of grace. 
This analogy, so interesting in itself, it was peculiarly appropri- 
ate and important, that we should notice at the commencement 



1838.] Head over all Tilings. 347 

of our inquiries. But we must not linger about the walls ; let 
us enter the kingdoms in the spirit of humble and believing in- 
quirers, and we shall find secondly, that 

2. They are all governed by general laws. This is a char- 
acteristic feature of the divine government. Human govern- 
ments multiply statutes, and strive, but strive in vain, to enact an 
express law for every specific case. Each day gives birth to an 
unforeseen emergency, and calls for a new enactment. With the 
increase of population and national prosperity, the difiSculty of 
legislation increases, till the uninterrupted exercise of legislative 
wisdom is insufficient to provide for the ever varying interests 
and relations of the people. 

Suppose now some lawgiver should arise, who could com- 
prise every specific right and duty and interest and relation in 
one simple, comprehensive law. How would he throw into the 
shade the far-famed lawgivers of antiquity, and the boasting 
legislators of the present day ! But Lycurgus and Solon may 
rest in peace in their glory ; and our representatives in the 
Legislative hall need indulge no fear of being superseded in 
their functions and prerogatives. Such a legislator never has 
arisen and never will appear. 

Yet it is by such laws that the kingdoms of nature, provi- 
dence and grace are governed. Take for examples the law of 
gravitation, the law of society, and the law of love. 

The first regulates the relations and movements of every 
world and every atom in the material universe. The falling 
pebble and the rising mote, the descending rain and the ascend- 
ing fog, the revolving planet, the eccentric comet and the cen-> 
tral sun are alike subject to its sway. 

The second regulates the relations and movements of eveijr 
individual in society. Not a human being but feels the power 
of the social principle attracting him towards other human be- 
ings. None are so high as to be independent of the principle ; 
none so low as to escape its all pervading influence^ 

In like manner, the third regulates the relations and move- 
ments of every Christian in the church. However di&rent 
their denominations and forms and ceremonies^ however diverse 
their rank or talent, or dress, or deportment may be, just so 
far as they are Christians, all their thoughts and feelings and 
words and actions are controlled by one general law-r-*the law 
of love. Thus the material, the social, the spiritual universe 
each has one general law, all-porvading, all-controlling and all« 
comprehensive. 



348 T%e Head of the Church, [April. 

And these laws bear a mutual analogy not only in their uni* 
Dersalityy but in their nature. They are all laws of attraciiony 
of association, of union. There is a bond of society and of ho- 
ly brotherhood in the natural as well as the moral world. It 
requires no very lively imagination to see in the planet and its 
satellites the emblem of a liarmonious and happy family ; in 
the solar system, a larger circle of affectionate friends and neigh- 
bors ; in those groups of solar systems which revolve perhaps 
about some common centre, so many well regulated and well 
governed nations ; and in the universe of worlds all circling 
around the central throne of God, a counterpart of what the hu- 
man race would be, did they but yield as perfect obedience to 
the law of their social and moral nature as the heavenly bodies 
render to the law of gravitation. On the other hand, what is 
holy love but a principle of attraction, a law of gravitation in 
the spiritual world, which unites individual Christians into par- 
ticular churches, particular churches into the church universal, 
the church on earth to the spirits of the just made perfect in hea- 
ven, the whole general assembly and church of the first bom, 
to the innumerable company of the angels^ and all holy beings 
fast to the throne of the Most Hic:h ! 

Knit like the social stars in love, 
Fair as the moon and clear 
As yonder sun enthroned ahove, 
Christians through life appear. 

And in the future life, when the repelling and disturbing pow- 
er of selfishness will be annihilated, oh, how strong will be the 
bond, bow exquisite the harmony, how beautiful and blissful 
the union and sympathy, that pervades the church triumphant — 
the holy universe ! 

3. The laws in each kingdom are self-executing. This is 
another characteristic analogy, which pervades the various de- 
partments of the divine government. 

In human governments, it is usually quite as difficult to exe~ 
cute the laws as to make them. The executive does not al- 
ways understand them, sometimes wilfully misinterprets or fails 
to execute them ; and even when the agents of the govern- 
ment are well disposed and efficient men, they are utterly in- 
capable either of securing perfect obedience to the laws, or of 
punishmg every instance of disobedience. The man, who 
dhould devise a code of laws, that would execute themselves, 
would be an unrivalled benefactor to bis species and would ac- 
quire for himself an imperishable renown. 



1838.] Head over all Things. 349 

Such now are the laws of nature, providence and grace. 
They are inwrought into the very constitution, stamped on the 
forehead, graven upon the heart of the subject. " I will 

fut my law in their inward parts and write it upon their 
earts" Such is the decree of heaven promulgated in relation^ 
to the kingdom of grace, and the realms of nature and provi- 
dence are governed according to the same decree. Every sub- 
ject yields obedience to the law from the necessity of his na- 
ture, or if in the exercise of free-agency, he disobeys, he can- 
not help the self-infliction of the penalty. Every man must 
obey the laws of his physical nature, or injure his health and 
shorten or destroy his life. He must obey the laws of his so- 
cial nature, or torture himself, while he wrongs and provokes 
others. He must obey the laws of his moral and spiritual be- 
ing, or conscience condemns and passion rages and consumes 
the offender. 

Take the laws already specified, the law of gravitation, the 
law of society and the law of love. Obedience to each secures 
order and harmony, safety and beauty. Disobedience is imme- 
diaiely and inevitably followed by disorder, confusion and 
ruin. " The wreck of matter and tne crush of worlds," which 
would attend a suspension of the law of attraction, is but a type 
of the jarring and collision of fiercer elements and the wreck 
and ruin of dearer interests, which are consequent upon a sus- 
pension of the social principle and the law of love. While on 
the other band, the harmonious and beautiful order of the ma- 
terial universe as it is, is an emblem fit of the harmony, peace 
and happiness, that would pervade the spiritual world on condi- 
tion of perfect obedience to the law of social reciprocity and 
universal benevolence. 

"Tbere^B not an orb, which thou behold'st 
But ID his motion, like an angel sings 
Still quiring to the young-eyed cberubims: 
Such harmoMf is in immortal souls^ 
But while this muddy vesture of decay 
Doth grossly close it in, we cannot bear it." 

4. There is a striking analogy in the degree and manner of 
sovereignty exercised in each of the kingdoms. 

Does God make one creature an animalcule to float in the 
minutest drop of spray, and another a great whale to traverse 
the boundless ocean ; one a reptile to crawl in the dust, another 



350 The Head of the Church, [April 

a lion to roam the monarch of the forest, and a third an eagle 
to soar above the clouds ; the zoophyte scarcely to be distin- 
guished from the senseless plant, and man to bear the image of 
his Maker and exercise in part the sovereignty of the universal 
LfOrd — ^without consulting at all the wishes of his creatures ? 

In like manner, his providence has cast one man's lot in the 
wilderness a wandering savage, and another's in the city amid 
luxury and refinement ; has exalted one to sit king on a throne, 
and doomed another to toil a slave in the mines, has taught one 
to range the universe, " borne on thought's most rapid wing," 
and left another to confine his views to his native valley and his 
necessities to the supply of his bodily wants — and he has done 
all this without consulting the preference of the individuals con- 
cerned. 

That a similar sovereignty is exercised in the kingdom of 
grace, need scarcely be stated, for it forms a standing objection 
to the administration of that realm. There too '^ it is not of 
him that wiUeth nor of him that runneth but of God, that show- 
eth mercy. The angels sin, and are all thrust down to the 
realms of darkness and despair. Man rebels, and an atone- 
ment is provided for his salvation. Yet only a part of mankind 
are destined to obtain eternal life, while the remainder are left 
to perish in their sins. Some are bom to live and die heathen, 
while a Christian birth-right and inheritance fall to the lot of 
others. 

There is no democracy, no levelling, no fear of distinctions 
in any part of God's government ; and it is most unreasonable 
and inconsistent, that they, who have always recognized the 
exercise of absolute sovereignty in some parts of his govern- 
ment should be surprised to discover the same sovereignty in 
other parts, and that ihey, who find no fault with the principle 
in nature and providence, should consider the same principle an 
insuperable objection to the administration of divine grace. 

There is an analogy also as to the manner in which or the 
jnincwle on which the sovereignty is exercised. " I thank 
thee O Father, Lord of heaven and earth," says Christ, " that 
thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast 
revealed them unto babes-~even so Father, for so it seemed 
good in thy sight." In like manner Paul says in relation to 
his own times. " Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not 
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many no- 
ble are called, but God hath chosen the foolish things of the 



1838.] Head over all Things. 351 

world to confound the wise, and God bath chosen the weak 
thinfl;s of the world to confound the mighty, and base things of 
the world and things which are despised hath he chosen, yea 
and things which are not, to bring to nought things which are." 

The great principle involved in both these passages is that 
the heirs of earthly good are not usually chosen to inherit spir- 
itual blessings. And it is a principle, which pervades every 
department of God's government, that he seldom lavishes all 
his favors upon the same individuals. The treasures of nature, 
of providence, and of grace are all infinite, yet they are meted 
out with a sparing and a discriminating hand. 

How liberal has nature been in the provision of her gifts, 
yet how parsimonious in the distribution of them ! The sum 
total is beyond calculation, the dividend is usually smalL 
Through the whole range of animals, how rarely are strength 
and agility combined, beauty and melody blended, cunning and 
courage united ! The gaudy plumage of the peacock and the 
sweet voice of the nightingale pever meet. The strength and 
ferocity of the lion do not coexist with the cunning of the fox 
or the reason of man. 

So Providence rarely allots learning to the king or rank to the 
scholar. He takes health and peace away from both, and 
makes them the portion of the obscure and illiterate peasant. 
The healthy are not usually the wealthy, nor the wealthy the 
wise. Solomon stands almost alone as at once the greatest, the 
richest and the wisest man in his kingdom. God has given to 
tropical climes beauty and fertility, but he has also given them 
the tempest and the tornado. He has doomed the inhabitants 
of temperate climes and mountainous regions to toil and fatigue, 
but he has rewarded them by " health, peace, and competence," 
and in like manner Grace has made exhaustless provision for 
our spiritual wants. Heaven was emptied of its choicest trea- 
sure and brightest glory to procure gifts for men, yet these gifts 
are not lavished upon those, who have already full hands and 
surfeited hearts. The Gospel was committed, not to the Liter- 
ati at Rome, or the Rabbis at Jerusalem, but to the Fishermen 
of Galilee, It was preached unto the poor, and embraced by 
the humble and unlearned. It is the poor and hungry, the 
weeping and mourning, the despised and persecuted that inherit 
the christian beatitudes. If you would find the abodes of vir- 
tue and piety, you must go, not where 

the spicy breezes 
Blow soft o*er Ceylon'i isle, 



1 



35'2 The Head of the Church, [April 

And every prospect pleaaes, 
And only man is vile ; 

but to New England's rock bound coast and Iceland's frozen 
shores, the rugged mountains of Scotland, or the inaccessible 
fastnesses of the High Alps. 

5. There is the same necessity for active exertion in each 
of the three kingdoms. Divine Sovereignty and human agency 
run parallel through nature, ]>rovidence, and grace. It b the 
law of the kingdom of grace. << Work out your own salvation 
with fear and trembling, for it is God who worketh in you 
both to will and to do of his good pleasure." It is the law of 

f)rovidence, ^^ God helps those, that help themselves," and the 
aw of nature, " The sun-shine and the plough cover the valleys 
over with corn." " The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich," 
naturally, intellectually spiritually rich, but not without ^^ the 
hand of the diligent." 

He, who would explore the mysteries of nature, providence 
and grace, must study hard ; and he must labor hard, who would 
secure and enjoy their blessings. In the sweat of his face man 
eats his bread. This life gives us nothing without great labor,* 
and strait is the gate and narrow the way, that leads to life 
everlasting. We must agonize to enter the kingdoms of nature 
and providence as well as the kingdom of grace — all alike suf- 
fer violence and the violent take them by force. 

The divine agency may be more or less secret and inscruta- 
ble, and we may not be able to discern the connection between 
the means required of man and the end to be accomplished, 
'^et both are absolutely essential to the accomplishment of the end. 

e cannot discover the manner of divine and human cooperation, 
yet is it an obvious fact, that without that cooperation, we can 
put forth no successful effort of body, mind or heart ; transact 
no important business in the natural or the spiritual world ; se- 
cure no valuable interest for time or eternity. The Creator's 
efficiency and the creature's responsibility, absolute dependance 
and entire free agency, run parallel throughout the natural and 
the moral universe. 

6. There is the same apparent mixture of good and evil, 

* T&p yoLQ ortwf iya&op xd xalwp ohdip Srsv nopov xal iinfidumg 
Btol didoaiTtp ip&qmtoig, Xenopbon, Memorabilia. IL 1: 28. 

Nil sine magno 
Vita labore dedit mortanbu8.~Horace Sat 9. Lib. I. 



fe^ 



18S8.] Head aver aU Things. 353 

order and confusion, light and darkness, in each of the three 
kingdoms. 

Look where you will in this world, you see a chequered 
scene. The eye of man never rests on a spot of unmixed 
good or unmixed ill. Not a creature exists within the whole 
range of our observation, that does not drink a cup of mingled 
sweet and bitter. What animal ever lived and died without 
experiencing both pleasure and pain ? Man, does he receive 
good at the hand of Providence, and does he not also receive 
evil ? Nor is there a just man on earth, that doeth good and 
sinneth not. Natural good and natural evil, providential good 
and providential evil, spiritual good and spiritual evil every 
where commingle. Like opposite polarities, the existence of 
the one always indicates the existence of the other.''^ 

Are there " wars and fightings " in the spirittud world 1 So 
there are in society. So there are in the animal kingdom. 
There is war every where on earth— there was war in heaven 
once. Natural, civil and ecclesiastical history are severally his- 
tories of alternate war and peace, battles and truces, cruel oppres- 
sions and cruel sufferings. ^' The whole creation groaneth and 
travailetb in pain together J*' 

Does slavery exist io human society ? So it does among the 
lower animals. White ants, like white men, capture their color- 
ed brethren, and doom them to involuntary, perpetual servi- 
tude.! And slavery exists in the spiritual world too4 

Are there earthquakes in nature 1 There are iJso moral 
and spiritual earthquakes— convulsions which shake society and 

* Plato in his Phaedo, speaking of pleasure and pain, says, "If any 
perM>n pursues and receives the one, he is almost always under a 
necessity of receiving the other, as if both of them depended from one 
summit." Phaedo. III. 

f See Nat. Hist, of Insects. Family Library, No. VIII. chap. 7. 
^ The legionary ant is actually formed to be a slave-dealer, attacking 
the neets of other species, stealing their young, rearing them, and thus 
by shifting all the domestic labors of their republic on strangers, escap- 
ing from labor tbemselves. This curious fact, first discovered by Hu- 
ber, has been confirmed by Latreille, and is admitted by all naturalists. 
The slave is distinguished from his master by being of a dark ash color, 
so as to be entitled to the name of negro. (Formica fusca.)" 

} Rom. Gt 16. '* His servants (slaves, dovXol) ye are, to whom ye 
obey." John 8: 34. 1 Pet. 5: 8. Eph. ShS 

Vol. IX. No. 30. 45 



354 The Head of the Chwrdt, [AnMV 

the church to their foundatkxis, and threaten to destroy their 
very existence. 

Some churches sometimes exliibit a most lovely spectacle of 
order and harmony and peace. Such was the state of the 
church at Jerusalem in its infancy, when no man claimed or 
sought any thing as his own, none gloried in wealth, and none 
suffered from poverty ; *' and they continued daily with one ac- 
cord in the temple, and breaking bread fiK>m house to house, did 
eat their meat with gladness, and singleness of heart, praising 
God, and having favor with all the people." But it was not 
airways so with the church at Jerusalem or other apostolic 
churches. It was not long before Paul was under the necessity 
of rebuking the church at Corinth for such disorders as were 
^^ not even named among the Gentiles," and pronouncing the 
members '^ carnal " because of '^ e$i»yingSy strifes and divisions 
among them." There was envy and jealousy, cowardice and 
treachery in the chosen band of Christ's aposdes. And none 
need be told, for every eye hath seen and every ear bath heard,, 
how much there now is in the church of that strife, which is ac-^ 
oompanied with ^^ confusion and every evil work." 

In like manner, there b here and there a regular and cheer^ 
fill family y an orderly and quiet comnmnityy a peaceful and 
bappy nation. But how often does confimon succeed order in 
these very families and communities and nations ; or if not in 
the same, how does it prevail in others around them ? Some* 
times the good man prospers and the bad only suffers, but how 
often the tables are turned and the order reversed I And oftener 
still ^^ one event happeneth to all." 

In like manner in the natural world, there are deserts amid 
tropical verdure, and oases amid deserts. There is an iEltna 
in fertile Sicily, and a Vesuvius threatening the rich fields and 
blooming villages, and beautiful bay, of Naples. The tempest 
breaks in upon the sunshine, the earthquake succeeds the calm, 
and the blazing meteor, the streaming comet and the appearing 
and disappearing star seem to disturb the harmony of the higher 
heavens. Throughout the divine economy^ strange disorder 
and confusion are set over against exquisite order and harmony. 

It is a common complaint of deists that there is obscurity in 
the Bible, and mystery in the whole scheme of grace. But is 
there no obscurity in the deist's Bible, no mystery in the divine 
economy, which the deist acknowledges ? Had the economy 
of grace, been all light and brightness, it would have been too 



1838.] Head over all ningt. 353 

unlike the constitutioo and course of nature, to be referable to 
the same author. Now^ where in God's works, b there not ob- 
scurity and mystery ? I may find such a spot in another world, 
but I never have in this. There is light everywhere, but only 
enough to make the darkness visible ; and the more light there 
is, the more we are sensible of the darkness, just as the larger 
the sphere illumined by a lamp in the open air at midnight, the 
more extensive is the concavity of darkness, by which it is en- 
veloped. There never has been a day in this world, which did 
not answer in some respects the description of the prophet : '' It 
shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear 
nor dark— not day nor night.'' There is light enough in nature, 
providence and grace severally, to guide us in all matters of prac- 
cal utility or necessity, but if you would explore further, you 
enter the region of darkness. If you look downwards, you can 
only penetrate the surface, only examine a few scratches in the 
rind of the earth. If you look around you, every mineral is a 
cabinet of wonders, every plant a natural labyrinth, every ani- 
mal a microcosm of mysteries, and of every element, it may be 
said as of the wind, " thou canst not tell whence it cometh, nor 
whither it goeth." If you turn your eye upwards, the stars 
twinkle very far, but you know not how far above your head, 
their dimensi<»is and velocities are very great, but how great in 
most cases none can tell, while as to the specific purposes, 
which they are made to subserve, you are left to mere con- 
jecture. 

And the deist's New Testament, the book of providence^ is 
there less mystery in that, than in the New Testament of our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ? Then why all those anxieties, 
and perplexities and murmurings and repinings, of which the 
ooouths of worldlings and the books of infidels are full ? 

It is this mixture of good and evil, order and confusion, light 
and darkness, which gives such a color of plausibility to the 
most opposite views of our worid. Voltaire looks only at the 
dark side of the picture, and uses the following language of 
complaint. ^' Who can without horror consider the whole 
world as the empire of destruction ! It abounds with won- 
ders ; it abounds also with victims. It is a vast field of car^ 
sage and contagion. Every species is without pity pursued 
and torn to pieces through the earth and air and water. 

^* In ihan there is more wretchedness, than in all the other 



3S6 Tkt Head of the Church, [ Apeil 

animals put together. He loves life, and yet he knows that he 
must die. If he enjoys a transient good, he suffers various evils, 
and is at last devoured by worms. This knowledge is his fatal 
prerogative — all other animals have it not. He spends the 
ti-ansient moments of his existence in difiiisang the miseries he 
suffers, in cutting the throats of his fellow creatures for pay, in 
cheating and being cheated, in robbing and being robbed, in 
serving that he might command, and in repenting of all he does. 
The bulk of mankind are a crowd of wretches equally criminal 
and unfortunate, and the globe contains rather carcasses than 
men. 1 tremble on the review of this dreadful picture to find 
that it contains a complaint against providence itself, and I wish I 
had never been born." 

Paley looks chiefly at the bright side of the picture, and says ; 
^^ It is a happy world, after all. The air, the earth, the water, 
teem with delighted existence. In a spring noon or a summer's 
eve, on whichever side I turn my eyes, myriads of happy beings 
crowd upon my view. Swarms of new-bom flies are trying 
their pinions in the air. Their sportive motions, their wanton 
mazes, their gratuitous acUvity, their continual change of place 
without use or purpose testify their joy and the exultation which 
they feel in their newly discovered faculties. ... If we look to 
what the waters produce, shoals of the fry of fish frequent the 
margins of rivers, of lakes, and of the sea itself. These are so 
happy that they know not what to do with themselves. ... A 
child is delighted with speaking without knowing any thing to 
say, and with walking without knowing where to go. The 
young are happy in enjoying pleasure, the old are happy when 
free from pain." Halyburton in the midst of affliction and in 
full view of death looks on the same side and exclaims, " Oh, 
blessed be God that I was bom. I have a father and mother 
and ten brothers and sisters in heaven, and I shall be the eleventh. 
Oh, there is a telling in this providence, and 1 shall be telling it 
forever. If there be such a glory in his conduct towards me 
now, what will it be to see the Liamb in the midst of the throne ! 
Blessed be God, that ever I was born." 

Now were not the present such a mixed state of things as I 
have described, different views might be taken of it, but not 
views diametrically opposite^ yet both apparently just and trae. 
And God makes use of this very mixture of good and evil to 
test and develope and form character. There is such a pre* 



1838.] Head over M Tkif^. 35T 

ponderance oigoodxxx nature^ as to iiiniish presumptive evidence 
of the goodness of its author, but such a mixture of enil as to 
give scope for the developement of a heart of unbelief and dis-^ 
content. There is such a preponderance of order and justice 
in the providential government of this world as to create a pre* 
sumption, that God is just, but such a mixture of disorder and 
wmutice as to afford a strong argument for a future state. 
There is such a preponderance of light in the Bible, as to sat- 
bfy a reasonable mind of its truth and sacredness, but such a 
mixture of darkness as to let the perverse heart wander and 
cavil, and despise and perish. It would seem as if God intend- 
ed in this universal analogy to present us everywhere with the 
most sensible and striking proof, that he reigns alike in the 
realms of nature, providence and grace, and that we are now 
living in a state of trial, the issue of which will be a state of 
unmixed good or unmixed ill in another world. But this leads 
me to a seventh analogy : 

7. In nature, providence and grace alike, God brings good 
out of evil, order out of confusion, light out of darkness. 

It has been already intimated, that character is better tested 
and developed in a mixed state. There can be no trial of 
fiiith, in a world of such efiulgent light, as enforces belief. No 
trial of patience, where there are not ills to provoke impatience. 
And reason accords with revelation in pronouncing the trial of 
these virtues to be more precious than that of silver and gold. 

None could avoid admiring a state of perfect order. Vol- 
taire, though he might have been of a discontented spirit,, 
would not have vented his feelings in such loud and eloquent 
complaints, had no disorders or evils met his eye ; and though 
Paley might have been benevolent and cheerful, and Halybur- 
ton pious at heart, yet they could have given comparatively lit- 
tle evidence of such a character, had they never seen any thing 
but goodness and happiness in the world around them. In 
such a world, the three men could never have seen so clearly 
themselvesj or exhibited so conspicuously to others, the radical 
difference in their characters. 

But more than this is true. A mixture of good and evil is 
essential to the formation of a highly excellent or deeply de- 
praved character by beings constituted as we are. Our physi- 
cal, mtellectual and moral powers are all strengthened by severe 
trial and discipline, and to this feature of our own constitution,, the 



358 The Bead of the Churchy [Apbil 

structure of the world around us is nicely adapted. It is m no 
small degree a world of barrenness and thorns, a world of ob- 
scurity and mystery, a world of temptation and sin. We may 
and do perfect our natures by struggling with, and overcoming 
such obstacles. Physical strength is derived, not from the easy 
chair in the parior, but from ploughing and hoeing the earth, 
swinging the axe or belaboring the anvil. Intellectual power 
and acumen are not received without effi>rt in the nursery or the 
lecture room, but acquired by delving in the mines and separa* 
ting the gold from the ore. Moral and religious principle be« 
comes firm and decided, not in the select circle of virtue and 
piety, but in the wide world of temptation and sin. Thus the 
natural and spiritual worlds resemble, and conspire with, each 
other in the developement and formation of character in the 
only way adapted to our constitution and state of probation, 
viz. by such a mixture of good and evil as shall leave us at full 
liberty to choose a right or a wrong course and furnish us at 
once the means, which are necessary to aid our progress in the 
way of our choice, and the obstacles, the removal of which by 
continued effort is necessary to develope our powers and con- 
firm our habits. 

In the same manner and probably for the same end the sci- 
ences have exerted alternately good and bad influences on re- 
ligious character. Like the three kingdoms of which they coiw 
stitute the history and the philosophy, they are partly light and 
partly darkness, and they have shed upon religion, now light and 
now darkness. Now they have raised objections, and now they 
have removed those objections, and furnished contrary and cor- 
roborating evidence. Such has been the history of every sci- 
ence, theology not excepted. Accordingly different men have 
found in the same science, one nutriment tor his iaith and an- 
other support for his skepticism, one the means of perfecting 
his excellencies, another of deepening his depravity.* 

Another way, in which good is brought out of evil in all the 
departments of the divine government, is by the ibcreased value 
which good acquires or seems to acquire by contrast with evil. 
The fertile field never appears so rich as when contrasted with 

* It is not denied, that true science has eomedmes been perverted 
into ao engine of irreiigion and immorality, fiut it is moraibequeat- 
\j the errors which are engrafted upon the science, that do the dm- 
chief. 



183B.] Bead <nfer aU TTimgt. 359 

the banea desert. How does the hungry and thirsty, weary 
Bad wayworn traveller through the interminable prairie or the 
boundless Sahara, reve) in the shades and fountuns and fruits 
and flowers of the wooded island or the verdant oasis ! None, 
but he who has suffered a long confineinent in the narrow 
streets and infected atmosphere of a populous city, knows the 
luxury of life in the fresh green oountiy • 

It is 80 with prcddential good. If you are ever grateiiil for 
health, k is when you have visited a hospital and had your heart 
wrung with sympathy for the afflicted and distressed inmates ; 
and if yoQ ever enjoy the blessings of health with a keen, a pe* 
culiar celish, it is when you have yourself just risen from a bed 
of painful and protracted sickness. You set the highest value 
upon your knowledge, when you view it in contrast with the 
ignorance of otherB,or perhaps with your owa former ignoraace. 
It is 80 with tpirittud good. When the Christian looks ^^ at the 
rock whence he was hewn and the hole of the pit, whence he 
was digged," and sees others still cleaving to the hardness of im* 
peniteocy and sinking in the mire of pollution, then it is that he 
sings the loudest, most enrapturing song of praise to his God 
and Redeemer. Heaven is the traveller's resting place and the 
prHgrim's home, the warrior's peace and the runner's goal, per- 
petual health to the diseased, and eternal life to the dying, con- 
firmed holiness to the sinner, and perfected bliss to the misera- 
ble ; and tbioogfa eternity the joys of the redeemed will be en- 
hanced and their notes of praise swelled immeasurably by look- 
ing back upon the sins and miseries of earth, and locking down 
upon the torments and blasphemies of hell.''^ 

But evil is also made throughout the divine government the 
direct wieans of preventing a greater evil or accomplishing a 
greater good. The volcano is often a terrible scourge to its im- 
mediate vicinity, but it gives vent to those internal fires which 
would otherwise shake continents and lay waste nations. France 



* The songs of the redeemed in the Revelation are chiefly songs 
of delweranet \a view of the dreadful and final overlhrow of the wick- 
ed. In making such representations, the ininisters of the Oospel and 
the sacred writers are often charged with a fiendish delight in the 
miseries of others. But it is nothing more, than that joy and grati- 
tude, which we always and tueessarUy feel in contrasting our eryoy- 
ments with our dtstrtSy our present happiness with our foraier misery, 
or our awn weal with the wo of othens. 



360 7%6 Head of the Churchy [April 

in the last century was a political and moral vdcano. Anarchy 
and infidelity broke out there in such fHghtful ravages and ooo- 
vulsions, as to put an effectual check upon the risings and heav- 
ings of other nations, and to furnish a safeguard to society and 
the church in every subsequent age of the world. And who 
<;an say, that our world is not the vent of sin for the mcNral uni- 
verse, designed to exeit a conservative influence over thousands 
of worlds and myriads of intelligent beings through endless ages.* 

The lightning and the tempest often ravage the earth and 
destroy human life, but they also purify the atmosphere and 
prevent it from becoming fatal on a larger scale. So the judg- 
ments of heaven reform individuals, purify churches, correct so- 
cial habits and improve national character* 

The modem Italian derives subsistence and pleasure from the 
surface of the lava, that entombed Herculaneum and Pompeii ; 
£urope owed the revival of letters not a little to the destruction 
of Constantinople ; and the Gentile world were indebted to the 
persecution of the church at Jerusalem for the general propaga- 
tion of the Gospel. Indeed if there is any truth in natural, po- 
litical and ecclesiastical history, convulsions have been a princi- 
pal means of fertilizing and beautifying the surface of the earth ; 
revolutions, of reforming and advancing society ; and persecu- 
tions, of purifying and enlargbg the church. W ho is not struck 
with the peculiar wisdom, that originated this plan of operation, 
and the 'Symmetry, that extended it to every department of the 
divine government ?t 

Slavery y that scourge of Africa and curse and disgrace of the 
nations that have sanctioned it, has it done no good ? To say 
nothing of the conversion and salvation of thousands, that would 
otherwise have lived and died m heathenism, what else bas pro- 

* That the influence of the fall together untk the scheme of recovery 
is not confined to our world, is dear from such passages as the fol- 
lowing. Luke 15: 10. Col. 1: 30. 1 Cor. 4: 9. Eph. 3: 20. That it 
should aflect all moral beings accords with all our ideas of moral in- 
fluence, and to suppose that it does^ gives new grandeur to the scheme 
of moral government and to the plan of redemption. 

t This feature of the divine government does not justify the radical 
reformer, any more than the cruel persecutor. The divine plan may 
be wise, and the divine purpose good, while yet there is neither wis- 
dom uor goodness in the human agency. 



1838.] Head over all Tilings. 861 

duced or could have produced that unparalleled sympathy and 
excitemeDt in behalf of Africa, which has led so many white 
missionaries to breathe her pestilential airs and lay their bones 
on her burning sands ; and what else has sent back so many of 
her own sons, civilized, enlightened and redeemed to build up 
nations on her coasts and spread the blessings of knowledge, 
society and religion through the countless heathen tribes of the 
interior ? 

And the evil one himself, — has he not been the means of 
doing good ? He too has occasioned a sympathy in behalf of 
his wretched victims through all the heavenly hosts, and ^* there 
is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth more than over 
ninety and nine just persons, that need no repentance.'^ When 
he drove on his slaves to crucify the son of God, he helped to 
execute a scheme, which the angels desire to look into, and 
which all holy beings will study and contemplate with ineffable 
wonder, love and joy forever and ever. 

The animal Jcingdom, which is sometimes represented as a 
mere scene of carnage and cruelty, is a scheme of comprehen- 
sive wisdom and goodness ; and the existence of carnivorous 
and venomous animals, so far from a blemish, is the wisest and 
best and most wonderful part of the scheme. Venomous ani- 
mak rarely attack other species except for purposes of defence 
or subsistence. Now what more effectual means of defence 
against the larger animals could be devised, than their venom* 
ous bite or sting; and what other way of destroying their 
smaller prey would be so sudden, so easy, and attended with 
so little pain ! 

The destruction of many animals is absolutely necessary to 
prevent such a multiplication of them, as would exhaust vege- 
tation and subject not only the whole animal kingdom, but man 
himself to a lingering, torturing death by famine. Now how 
profound, how superhuman is the wisdom, which makes this 
necessary destruction, the means of subsistence and happiness 
to another class of animals, that execute it in a manner far less 
painful to the victims, than the slow tortures of famine, disease 
or old age ! But for the comforts of society, the pleasures of 
intellect, and the hopes and fears of immortality, it would be 
better for man to die in the same way. As it is his reason 
which exempts him from the scheme of animal destruction, so 
it is his rational and immortal nature only, which renders it de- 

VoL. XI. No. 30. 46 



362 The Head of the Church, etc. [April 

sirable that be should be exempted. Thus witboat any loss on 
the whole, but rather the reverse, to the herbivorous tribes, tbe 
happiness of the carnivorous species is clear gain to the sum 
total of animal enjoyment.* 

Now it is a doctrine of christian theology, that the sum total 
of moral as of natural good is enhanced by the existence of evil. 
We cannot see so clearly how this result is effected in the moral 
as in the natural world, hence there is some dispute as to the 
manner. But as to the fact, there can be no doubt.f The 
Bible implies it,| and we see enough of the process to satisfy a 
reasonable mind. The sins and temptations of a wicked world 
give occasion for the exercise of some virtues, which could not 
otherwise exist, and discipline other virtues to a degree of 
strength and perfection, which they could not otherwise attain. 
Earth with all its barrenness and thorns and briars, is the very 
soil for faith and patience and charity to bloom in and bear their 
precious harvest of golden fruit. 

Without the existence of evil, there could not be tbe luxury, 
to lis unequalled, of contemplating our deliverance and praising 
our Deliverer. Tbe beauties of the Redeemer's character and 
the glories of redemption could have been exhibited only in a 
theatre of sin and misery. Other worlds may owe their con- 
tinued allegiance to our apostacy, their further progress in know- 
ledge and holiness to our folly and guilt ; and the holy universe 
will understand the nature, perceive the beauty, and enjoy the 
pleasures of holiness far more than if sin and misery hftd never 
existed. 

As in the natural world, destruction and pain affi>rd the means 
of subsistence and pleasure, so in the spiritual world, sin and 
misery furnish nutriment to holiness and happiness ; and as the 
happiness of carnivorous animals is clear gain without any loss 
to the herbivorous, so without doing the wicked any wrong, the 
Head of the church will by tlieir means greatly enhance the ho- 
liness and happiness of his people, while he makes a matchless 
dbplay of his own wisdom and goodness. Thus he causes all 

* For authority and more extended discussion on this subject, the 
reader may refer to Paley's Nat. Theol. chap. 26. and Buckland's 
Bridg. Treat, cbap. 13. 

t Theologians of all parties agree, that evil is in some way, or for 
some reason, incidental to the best system. 

} Rom. 3: 5—7. 5:20. II: 11, 12, 32, 33, etc. 



1888.] Dr. Schmucker's Appeal. 869 

the wrath of the elements and animals and men and deTils to 
praise him and to work together for the good of the universe ; 
and we only need clearer eyes, larger minds and better hearts 
to see every apparent evil in every department of the-^divine 
government producing real good. 

'^ All nature is but art unknown to thee. 
All chance, direction which thou canst not see. 
All discord, harmony not understood, 
All partial evil, universal good.'' 

[To be oooeladid.) 



ARTICLE III. 



Fraternal Appeal to the American Churches, to- 
gether WITH A Plan for Catholic Union on Apos- 
tolic Principles.* 

By B. B. Selimoeker, D. D.. Prorenor of nidtctie and Ptotomie TlMolugy ia the Tb«ol. Bern. 
ofGaoeral Syood of lh« Luthoran Charch, Gettyaburg, Penn. [Concfuded from p. 131.] 

Whilst contemplating the church of the Redeemer from 
the time when the Master tabernacled in the flesh, to the 

E resent day, we are, as was formerly remarked, forcibly struck 
y the contrast between her visible unity in the earlier centu- 
ries, and the multitude of her divisions since the Reformation. 
During the fonner period, the great mass of the orthodox chris- 
tian community on earth, constituted one universal or catholic 
church ; excepting only several comparatively small clusters of 
Christians, such as the Donatists and Nov^tians. Now, the 
purest portion of God's heritage, the Protestant world, is cleft 
into a multitude of parties, each claiming superior purity, each 
maintaining a separate ecclesiastical organization. The separa- 
tion of the Protestants from the Papal hierarchy, was an insu- 
Eerable duty ; for Rome had poisoned the fountains of truth by 
er corruptions, and death or a refusal to drink from her cup 
was the only alternative. " Babylon, the great, was fallen" 

* To the substance of this article, which, (as stated in the last No. 
of the Repository, p. 86, was prepared a year ago,) a few paragraphs 
only have been added in view of more recent events. 



364 Dr. SchmucJcer^s Appeal. [Apbil 

under the divine displeasure, and 'Uhe voice from heaven'^ 
must be obeyed, " Come out of her, ray people, that ye be not 
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues."* 
But that the Protestants themselves should afterwards separate 
from each other ; should break communion with those whom 
they professed to regard as brethren, was inconsistent with the 
practice of the apostolic church, and, at least in the extent to 
which it was carried, and the principle on which it was based, 
detrimental to the interests of the christian cause. But H must not 
be forgotten, that the position thus assumed, was, so far as its ulte- 
rior results are concerned, rather adventitious than designed. The 
Protestant churches struggled into existence amid circumstances of 
excitement, oppression and agitation both civil and ecclesiasticaL 
This state of things was highly unpropitious alike to the forma- 
tion of perfect views of church polity in theory, and their intro- 
duction in practice. The Reformation itself, could not have 
been effected, unless aided by the civil arm, which protected 
its agents from papal vengeance. A total exclusion of the civil 
authorities from ecclesiastical action, would probably have blast- 
ed the Reformation in the bud ; even if the views of the earlier 
Reformers had led them to desire such exclusion. Owing 
partly to these circumstance?, and partly to the remains of pa- 
pal bigotry still adhering to them, the Protestants in different 
countries successively assumed organizations not only entirely 
separate, as in some respects they properly might be ; but hav- 
ing little reference to the church as a whole, and calculated to 
cast into the back ground the fundamental unity which actually 
exists between them. Without entering into a detail of their 
origin, it may not be amiss, in view of the popular reader, to 
advert to the successive dates of their formation. 

The Lutheran church grew up with the Refonuation itself, 
which commenced in 1517. The early history of the one, in 
Germany, Denmark, Prussia, Sweden, and Norway is also the 
history of the other. The commencement of the church may 
be dated, either from 1520, when Luther renounced his allegi- 
ance to popery, by committing the emblems of papal power, 
the bulls and canons, to the flames ; or, more properly it may 
be fixed at 1530, when the refonners presented their confession 
of faith, to the emperor and diet at Augsburg. It is to be re- 
gretted, that this eldest branch of the Protestant church adopt- 



• Rev. 18: 3, 4. 



1888.] Dr. SehmucJcer^s Appeal 365 

ed a sectarian name ; thus fostering excessive reverence for the 
opinions of an illustrious yet fallible servant of God, erecting 
them into a standard of orthodoxy, and making his doctrinal at- 
tainments the ne plus ultra of ecclesiastical reformation. For, 
the church being termed Lutheran, it was a very popular argu- 
ment, which bigots did not fail to wield, that he who rejected 
any of Luther's opinions was untrue to the church which bore 
his name. Had some generic designation been assumed, and 
only generic principles been adopted for the organization of the 
church, the work of reformation might have been gradually ad- 
vanced until every vestige of popery was obliterated, without 
buriing the charge of unfaithfulness at any one. Yet, it is but 
justice to that distinguished servant of God to add, that the 
name was given to his followers by his enemies from derision, 
whilst he protested against it with his accustomed energy. ^' I 
beg (said he) that men would abstain from using my name, 
and would call themselves not Lutherans, but Christians. 
What is Luther? My doctrine is not mine. Neither was I 
crucified for any one. Paul would not suffer Christians to be 
called after him, nor Peter, but after Christ (1 Cor. 3: 4, 5). 
Why should it happen to me, poor, corruptible food of worms, 
that the disciples of Christ should be called after my abomina- 
ble name ? Be it not so, beloved friends, but let us extirpate 
party names, and be called Christians ; for it is the doctrine of 
Christ that we teach." 

The German Reformed church was next established through 
the agency of that dbtinguished servant of Christ, Zwingli. He 
commenced his public efforts as a Reformer in 1519, by oppos- 
ing the sale of indulgences by the Romish agent Sampson. In 
1531 a permanent religious peace was made in Switzerland, 
:securing mutual toleration both to the reformed and to the 
Catholics, and thus stability was given to this portion of the 
Protestant Church. 

The Episcopal church may be dated from 1533, when 
Henry VIII. renounced his allegiance to the pope, and separated 
the church of England from the papal see ; although the work of 
actually reforming this church was accomplished at a later date. 

The Baptist church may be referred to the year 1535, 
when Menno Simon commenced his career; or to 1536, 
when it was regularly organized. 

The Calvinistic or Presbyterian church, using the phrase to 
designate the church established by Calvin himself, may be 



866 Dr. Sckmucker^s Appeal, [April 

dated at 1536, when be was appointed minister at Geneva, or 
more properly at 1542 when he established the presbytery there. 

The Presoffterian church in England, Scotland and America, 
may be . regarded as a continuation of the church, founded by 
th'is eminent servant of God. 

The Congregational or Independent church may be dated 
from 1616, when the first Independent or Congregational church 
was organized in England by Mr. Jacob. 

The modem Moravian church or church of the United 
Brethren, may be regarded as originating in 1727, when Count 
Zinzendorf and Baron Waterville were selected as directors of 
the fraternity. Both the Moravian and the Baptist churches 
trace their origin to christian communities prior to the Reforma- 
tion. But our design is merely to enumerate the dates of the 
existing most extensive Protestant denominations; in doing 
which, we have selected the earliest periods, in order that read- 
ers of no particular church might dissent or feel aggrieved. 

The origin of the Methodist church may be traced to 1729, 
when its honored founder Mr. John Wesley, and Mr. Morgan 
commenced their meetings for the practical study of the sacked 
volume. 

Numerous other denominations of minor extent, are found 
among us, whose principles coincide more or less with those of 
the churches here specified. All these together constitute the 
aggregate Protestant church, and are the great mass of the visi- 
ble church of the Redeemer, engaged in promoting his mediato- 
rial reign on earth, and owned by his Spirit's blessing. 

Clauses of sectarian strife between the different branches of the 

Protestant church. 

In continental Europe the sectarian principle is not exhibited 
in its full development. There, either the Lutheran or Re- 
formed church, and in some instances both are established by 
law ; and the number of dissenters, if any exist, is very small. 
In England, where a greater amount of liberty is enjoyed, and 
the press is unshackled, dissenters from the established church 
are far more numerous. But it is only in these United States, 
where Christianity has been divorced from the civil government, 
and restored to its primitive dependence on its own moral power, 
that all sects are on perfect equality, and the natural tendency 
of sectarianism is witnessed in its full latitude. The separation 
between church and state is worthy of all praise, and demands 



1888.] Dr. Schtnucker*s Appeal 367 

OUT wannest gratitude to Heaven. It has restored the Ameri* 
can Protestant church to the original advantages of the golden 
age of Christianity in the apostolic days. In this land of refuge 
for oppressed Europe, God has placed his people in circumstan- 
ces most auspicious for the gradual ^' perfecting " of his visible 
kingdom. Here we are enabled, unencumbered by entangling 
alliances with civil government, to review the history of the 
Redeemer's kingdom for eighteen hundred years, to trace the 
rise and progress of error in all its forms, to witness the effects 
of every different measure, and by a species of experimental 
eclecticism, rejecting every thing injurious, to combine all that 
has proved advantageous, and incorporate it in the structure and 
relations of the Protestant church. And has not God, in his 

f>rovidence called us to this work ? Has he not, by our pecu- 
iar situation imposed on us this obligation ? Ought not every 
man, be he minister or layman, who wields any influence in any 
christian denomination, strive to rise to the level of this sublime 
undertaking, and inquire : Whence originates the strife among 
the different branches of the Protestant church ; and bow may 
their union on apostolic principles be most successfully effected ? 
Among the causes of this strife we may enumerate the following : 

1. The absence of any visible bond, or indication of union, 
between the different churches in any dty, tovm or neighbor'- 
hoody whilst each of them is connected to other churches else- 
where of their own denomination. This circumstance constant-* 
ly cherishes the unfriendly conviction, that each church prefers 
other distant churches to their own neighboring brethren. If 
the churches were all independent, having no closer connexion 
with any others abroad, than with their neighbors at home, 
there would be less occasion for this feelins;. No bond of out- 
ward union at all, would be more conducive to brotherly love 
among neighbors, than a bond which excludes those around, 
us and unites us to others afar off. The effect of this stimulant 
to apathy or disregard between neighboring disciples of the 
same Saviour is witnessed in our cities, which contain several 
churches of the same denomination, united by a common con- 
fession and by their Synodical or Presbyterial relations. Hpw 
much nearer do the churches of the same denomination feel to 
each other, than to other sects not thus connected, though equal- 
ly and sometimes more contiguous ! 

2. The next cause of strife among churches is their separate 
organization an the ground of doctrinal diversity. Separate 



368 Dr. Schmucker^s Appeal. [April 

organizatioD becomes necessary in any association whose mem- 
bers are numerous, and spread over a large extent of country. 
This is no less the case in church than in state. But the most 
natural ground of division aniqng those professedly belonging to 
the same great family, and aiming at the same ends, is geographi* 
cal proximity ; as is seen in the division of our common country 
into States and these again into counties, and as existed in the 
christian church in the apostolic age. But when the division is 
made according to a principle totally different from thb, when 
it is actually made on the ground of difference between certain 
portions of this common family ; it constantly holds up to view 
^ not only the existence of some difierence, but also the fact, that 
this difference is so important, as .to require those entertaining 
it to separate from one another. Now as of two conflicting 
opinions only one can be true ; it also implies, that each party 
regards the other as in important error, and that itself professes 
superior purity. This is virtually judging our brother, and per- 
petuating the recollection of our judgment by founding on it a 
peculiarity in the structure of our ecclesiastical organization. 
This circumstance is obviously calculated to beget unfriendly 
feelings, and to cherish bigotry ; and its effect will be propor- 
tioned to the density and exclusiveness of the organization based 
on it. In the primitive church, when no different denomina- 
tions of Christians existed, but all professors of Christianity, of 
contiguous residence, whether they entirely agreed in opinion 
or not, belonged to the same church ; the bigotry and pride of 
the human heart found food only in the separate interests of 
neighboring churches occupying different ground. But to this 
is now unhappily added the conflict of interests resulting fipom 
the occupancy of the same ground by two churches, as also the 
conflicting interests of separate extended ecclesiastical organiza- 
tions, aiming to occupy the same location. 

3. The third source of sectarian strife, may be found in the 
use of iransjitndamental creeds.* We have already seen that 
creeds properly constructed are useful in the church. We be- 
lieve it may easily be established, that either in written or oral 
form they are essential. They existed in the primitive church 
in the latter form, and were productive of good and only good. 
They were soon reduced to writing in the so-called Apostles' 

* By transfuDclamental creeds we would designate those creeds 
which embody not only the undisputed doctrines of Chrisiianity, but 
also the sectarian peculiarities of some particular denomination. 



1888.] Dr. Schmttcker's Appeal. 369 

creed, and served as a bond of union during the first four cen- 
turies of the church, among all who held the fundamentals of 
truth. But at that time creeds were confined to fundamentals. 
Neither the Apostles' nor the Nicene creed amounts to more 
than a single octavo page ; and to the whole of the former and 
most of the latter ail the dififerent orthodox churches of the 
present day could subscribe. That the brevity of these creeds 
did not arise from the absence of diversity of views b certain. 
It has been proved in a former part of this Appeal, that there 
did exist dififerences of opinion, even in the apostolic age, on 
some points, regarded by us as highly important. To that evi- 
dence, fully satisfactory because derived from God's infallible 
word, we would here subjoin a highly important passage from 
Origen, to prove that such diversities of opinion continued to 
characterize the church from that day till the middle of the 
third century, at which time he wrote. The apostolic fathers 
also, would afford us important testimony on this point. Their 
writings have, indeed, reached us in a corrupted state ; yet 
enough remains fully to answer our purpose ; for the difi^ren- 
ces which they endeavor to allay must have existed. We shall, 
however, confine ourselves to the passage irota Origen, which we 
believe has not before been presented to the American public. 
Origen, let it be borne in mind, was the most leai*ned christian 
writer who had appeared from the time of the apostles. He 
was born but eighty-five years after St. John's death, and there- 
fore may have seen persons who lived in the apostolic age. 
The infidel Celsus had asserted, that in the beginning, when 
Christians were few in number, there was unanimity on all 
points, but that in bis day, the latter part of the second century 
(A. D. 176), they differed on many subjects. The following is 
Origen's reply : " But he (Celsus) also asserts, that they (the 
primitive Christians) all agreed in their opinions ; not observing 
that from the beginning there were different opinions among be- 
lievers (Christians) as to the selection of the books to be re- 
garded as divine. Moreover, whilst the apostles were yet 
preaching, and those who were eye-witnesses were teaching the 
things which they had learned of Jesus, there was not a little 
dispute among the Jewish believers, concerning those gentiles 
who embraced the christian doctrines, whether it was their du- 
ty to observe the Jewish rites ; or whether the burden of clean 
and unclean meats might not be removed, as unnecessary, from 
those among the gentiles who abandon the customs of their fa* 
Vol. XI. No. 30, 47 



370 Dr. Schmucker^s Appeal. [Apbxl 

thers and believe in Jesus. And in the epistles of Paul we per* 
ceive that in the time of those who had seen Jesus, some were 
found who called in question the resurrection, and disputed 
whether it had not already taken place ; and also concerning 
the day of the Lord, whether it was just at hand or not ; and 
that (admonition) to avoid profane, vain babblings and the op- 
positions of knowledge falsely so called, which some professing^ 
have made shipwreck concerning the faith ; hence it is manifest 
that from the very beginning certain differences of opinion oc- 
curred, at a time when (as Celsus supposes) the number of the 
believers was yet small. Then, when discoursing about the 
di&rences of opinion amongst Christians, he upbraids us, saying 
that when the Christians became numerous and were scattered 
abroad, they were repeatedly split up and cut into parties, each 
wishing to maintain their own position, and then (he adds) — di- 
viding again, and quarrelling among themselves : until, so to 
speak, they agreed in only one thing, that is, in name, if 
even for shame's sake they still have this left in common ; 
biit that in all other things they differ. To this we re- 
ply, that there never has been a subject, whose principles are 
of any moment and of importance in life, concerning which dif- 
ferent opinions have not existed. Thus, because medicine is 
useful and necessary to the human family, there are many dis- 
puted points in it, relating to the different modes of curing the 
dbeased. Hence different parties (schools or systems) in med- 
icine are confessedly formed among the Greeks, and I believe 
also among such of the barbarous nations as avail themselves of 
the healing art. And again, because philosophy professes to 
teach the truth and instructs us in a knowledge of the things 
which exist, and how we ought to live, and aims at showing 
what will be advantageous to our race, it has many topics of 
dispute. Hence in philosophy also, there are very many parties 
(systems, schools,) some more and others less distinguished."* 
Here, then, we have the testimony alike of the most distin- 

• Origenes contra Celsuin, p|». 120, 121. edit. Hoesrhelii.— It i» evi- 
dent from the context, and certain from history, that Orijren when 
speaking of numerous differences among the Christians of his day, 
uses the word ait^tvig to signify diversities of opinion, or syi^tems of 
opinions and parties maintaining them, without any separate ecclesi- 
astical organization based on them, and without interruption of sacra* 
mental and ministerial ecclesiastical intercommunion of the parties. 
We have accordingly thus rendered it in the version in the text. 



1888.] Dr. Schmitcker^s Appeal. 371 

guished infidel and Christian of the second and third century, 
to the existence of differences of opinion (not separate ecclesi- 
astical organizations) in the christian church ; yet at that time 
the only creed which it was deemed proper to use, was that 
termed the Apostles' creed. In short, there is no doubt, that 
the different so called orthodox Protestant churches, are in re- 
ality as much united in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity 
as the church in the earlier centuries was. But modern creeds in- 
stead of giving prominence to this unity, and preserving it by 
adding a few sentences to these venerable ancient confessions, 
ip order to exclude the fundamental errors which have sprung 
up since the fourth century, are swelled some to fifty and some 
to a hundred times their size ! ! Thus they necessarily intro- 
duce so many minor points of doctrine and opinion, that few of 
the members of the churches professing them do in reality be- 
lieve ay their contents ! When the minor points of difference 
are embodied in a creed, they become the stereotyped charac- 
teristics of a new sect, and enlist in their defence many of the 
unsanctified principles of our nature. They become wedges of 
dissension to split in pieces the body of Christ, they form per- 
manent barriers of division and bulwarks of schism in his church. 

4. The fourth cause of alienation among Christians is the 
sectarian training of the rising generation. No principle is 
more fully established in the philosophy of mind, no fact more 
uniformly attested by the experience of ages, than that the irar 
pressions of early life are most lasting, that the prejudices of 
childhood and youth pursue us through every subsequent period 
of life. And whoever faithfully traces to its source the sectarian 
alienation of Christians will, we think, be constrained to attribute 
much of it to early sectarian training. 

How often do not many parents in the presence of their chil- 
dren, exhibit their prejudices against other religious denomina- 
tions ? How much more frequently do they exalt their own 
denomination above all others, either directly or by comparative 
allusions ? Are there not some parents, and alas that it should 
be so ! some pastors too, who strive more by direct efiR)rt to in- 
stil a disregard for others and a preference for their own sect 
into the minds of children, long before they are competent to 
comprehend or estimate the grounds of the supposed preference ? 
What else is this than an effort to sow the seeds of sheer preju- 
dice in the tender minds of children ? It is right that the pre- 
possessions and antipathies of youth should be not indeed excited^ 



372 Dr. Schmucker^s Appeal. [krva, 

but properly directed ; yet, for the bleeding Saviour's sake, let 
the former be enlisted in the favor of Christianity, not of secta- 
rianism, and the latter be directed against the enemies of the 
cross, and not against those whom we profess to acknowledge 
as its friends ! 

5. The next source of alienation among Christi&ns, is what 
may be termed sectarian idolatry or man-worship^ inordinate 
veneration for distinguished theologians, such as Luther, Cal- 
vin, Zwingli, Wesley and others. What candid man, possess- 
ing any extensive acquaintance with the literature of past ages, 
can deny that the deference awarded to the opinions and prac- 
tice of these men, is altogether inordinate, entirely beyond 
what is due to tlie merits of other men, and far above the 
measure of their actual superiority. Protestants justly censure 
the Romish church for reposing such confidence in tiie authori- 
ty of the ancient Fathers, that is, of distinguished theologians of 
the first four or five centuries of the christian church. Yet it 
may be doubted whether some Protestants have not inadvert- 
ently conceded to some of these modern Fathers an influence 
somewhat similar, possibly in a few cases even equal in degree. 
The names of these good and great yet fallible men, have be- 
come identified with certain distinguishing non-fundamental 
doctrines which they held, and by which they were distin- 
guished fix>m others. Their authority and influence, acquired 
by their zeal and success in behalf of the common Christianity, 
are thus often used as a shield of protection for these minor pe- 
culiarities. The very designation of these peculiarities by per- 
sonal names, calls into play sectarian associations, and sinister 
feelings, and is a kind of covert appeal to the authority of these 
Fathers. 

Moreover each sect is prone to cultivate almost exclusively the 
literature of its own denomination. Enter the theological schools 
or the private libraries of ministers, and you will find that gen- 
erally Lutherans and Calvinists and Episcopalians and Baptists 
and Methodists, devote most of their time to the study of au- 
thors of their own denominations, and this peculiarity may also 
be distinctly traced in the libraries of many lay Christians. 
Many of these dbtinguished servants of God would have grieved 
to think of the sectarian use, which posterity has made of their 
names and literary labors. Listen to the language of Luther, 
whose name and works were for two centuries especially thus 
Employed io Germany for purposes of strife : '^ I had cherished 



1838.] Dr. Sdimucktr*s Appeal 918 

the hope, that henceforth men would apply to the holy Scrip' 
tures themselves, and let my books alone ; as they have now 
accomplished their end and have conducted the hearts of men 
to the Scriptures, which was my design in writing them. What 
profit is there in the making of many books, and yet remaining 
ignorant of the book of books. Better far to drink out of the 
fountain itself, than out of the little rivulets which have con- 
ducted you to it.* — ^Whoever now wishes to have my books, I 
entreat him by no means to let them be an obstacle to bis 
studying the Scriptures themselves. But let him look upon my 
boot^, as I do on the decretals of the popes and books of the 
sophists, that is, though I occasionally look into them to see 
what they performed, and to examine the history of the times, 
I by no means study them under the impression, that I must do 
as they teach.f Yet there is reason to fear, that some good 
men have by early and long continued training become so much 
accustomed to test and value their views, rather as being Lu- 
theran or Calvinistic than biblical, have so long been in the 
habit of dwelling on the conformity .of their sentiments to those 
of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or some other worthy of the church, 
that they would feel deeply distressed and almost lost, if these 
names were wrested from them ! In the spirit of sucli sectari- 
anism we might commiserate the condition of the primitive dis*« 
ciples whose Christianity was based on the Saviour alone! 
We might exclaim, " Unhappy Paul, thou hadst no Luther nor 
Calvin nor Wesley to glory in, or whose name thou couldst 
bear in addition to that of Christ !" But were such the feelings 
of Paul ? He might himself have been a Luther, a Calvin, a 
Wesley, his name the watchword of a sect; but the noble- 
minded Paul would glory only in Christ. He would not allow 
the adoption of any sectarian name in the church. Sectarian 
names and party divisions he denounced as carnal. ^^There- 
lore" (said he) '' let no man glory in men ; for they are all 
yours (they are all the property of the whole church), whether 
Paul or Apollos or Cephas," (and we may add Luther and 
Calvin and Wesley) : all are yours, and ye are Christ's, and 
Christ is God's. So then {ovTwg) let a man consider us (me 
'and Apollos, etc.) as ministers of Christ and stewards of the 
mysteries of God (but not as leaders of parties)."! He would 

* Luther's Deutsche Werke, B. 14. 8. 492. f Ibid. S. 490. 
t 1 Cor. 8: 31—4: I. 



374 Dr. SckmucJcer^s Appeal. [Apbil 

have all believers called Christians and only Christians. All 
that this name implied he wished to be, and neither more nor 
less. Happy 'day ! when this spirit shall return to the church ! 
Then she may celebrate a jubilee, a glorious jubilee ; and it will 
literally be not a centennial, but a millennial jubilee. The last 
thousand years will have witnessed but one ! ! 

Nor would we pass in silence a collateral evil, resulting from 
the almost exclusive cultivation of sectarian literature. As this 
literature is all of a date subsequent to the Reformation, its pe- 
rusal impresses the Protestant laity with the modern origin of 
our churches ; and leaves them in almost total darkness as to 
our real identity with the church of the earlier ages. Hence 
our people are unduly impressed by the Romish claim to supe- 
rior antiquity, and an advantage is conceded to papists of which 
they cunningly avail themselves. If Protestants selected their 
literature promiscuously from among the different sects accord- 
ing to the intrinsic merits of the writers, it would tend much to 
promote actual unity and mutual esteem among themselves ; 
and if, both in their literature and creeds, they gave greater pro- 
minence to their identity with the primitive church, they would 
make the laity feel their connexion with the christians of the 
earlier centuries, and thus nullify the most popular argument by 
which papists proselyte Protestant members. 

6. Another source of sectarian discord, is ecclesiastical pride. 
As long as man is sanctified but in part, this element of native 
depravity will more or less influence the disciples of Christ ; 
will seek and often find luel even in the sanctuary of Crod. 
Each sect is naturally disposed to regard its institutions and its 
ministers as the most learned and able, or its members as 
most genteel, or its rites most fashionable, its churches most 
splendid, or its members the most pious, its pales as far the best 
road to heaven. Ministers are tempted to be influenced by the 
fact, that they regard their churches as presenting the most con- 
spicuous theatre for the display of their talents, or holding out 
the fairest prospects of advancement ; their audiences as the 
roost intelligent, their support as the most liberal, or as best se- 
cured against contingencies. Hence they are in danger of 
looking on their less favored neighbors with secret disrespect ; 
of cherishing ecclesiastical pride, and having their judgment 
warped by it. We do not assert that all ministers or laymen 
yield to the influence of this temptation, yet happy is that man, 
who, on an impartial examination of his feelings as in the pre- 



1888.J Dr. Schmucker's Appeal. 37S 

sence of God, stands fully acquitted by bis own conscience ! 
That caution here is not superfluous, was evidently the opinion 
of the great apostle of the gentiles, who having himself repelled 
all sectarian honors, gives double force to his admonition : 
" These things, brethren, I have Bguratively transferred (applied) 
to myself and to Apollos, for your sakes, that ye might learn 
by us not to esteem ministers (see v. I.) above what is writ-* 
ten (in v. 1. and ch. 3: 5 — 9, 21^ that no one of you may, on 
account of one (minister), be puned up against another!" 

7. The last source of sectarian discord to be noticed is 
conflict of pecuniary interest between neighbouring ministers 
and churches. This principle applies to the feelings of the 
minister in regard to his salary, which depends in some mea- 
sure on the increase of his church. In reference to laymen, it 
applies to their raising funds for all ecclesiastical purposes. 
The more their church prospers and receives additions, the 
more will their pecuniary liabilities be dix^ided, the more easily 
will the burden rest on their shoulders. Hence both pastors 
and people are tempted to envy and jealousy towards their 
christian neighbors of other denominations, because the success 
of either party, is more or les^ at the expense of the other* 
The success of either, diminishes the amount of materials for 
the others to act on, and this is a matter of serious moment to 
the parties especially in smaller towns and villages, where often 
twice as many ministers are stationed as are needed, or can be 
supported. 

From this difficulty the primitive church was almost entirely 
exempt. In the earlier ages it was customary to appoint, that 
is, ordain several elders, or as we now term them ministers, in 
every church, who divided the labor between them, and gen- 
erally continued to prosecute their secular buriness, thus in a 
great measure supporting themselves ; whilst it was customary 
from the beginning to provide for those who went abroad as 
fnissionariesy and travelled from place to place.*' The only fund 
of the church, was that which arose from the voluntary offer- 
ings of the members on each Lord's day. This fund however 
was considerable ; and it was probably as a stimulus to liberali- 
ty, that the custom of reading off the names of the contributors 
was introduced ; though its professed design was to commend 
them to the special prayers of the church. f In the third cen- 

* Fuch's Bibliotb6k der KircheDversammlungeD, Vol. I. p. 72, 7dL 
f Ibid. Vol. I. p. 79. 



876 Dr. Sckmucker^M Appeal* [Apro. 

tury, when the duties of mmisters had become so greatly multi- 
plied as to require their entire time, they were in some coun* 
tries prohibited from following any secular profession^ as we 
learn from Cyprian,*' and other sources* The sixth of the 
Apostolic Canons reads thus : 

Canon 6. Neither a bishop, presbyter nor deacon shall en* 
gage in secular employment y on pain of being deposed from of 
Jice. 

And the fortieth canon is as follows : 

Canon 40. We ordain that the bishop shall have the control 
of the congregational property. For as the predous souls of 
men are committed to nis care, much more ought he to have the 
control of the church property ^ that he may freely arrange w- 
ery thing, that he may aid the poor through the instrumentaH* 
ty of the presbyters and deacons, in the fear of God and in alt 
honesty. He shall also be permitted to apply a portion of it 
to his oum indispensable wants, if he needs it, as also for 
strange Christiar^ who have come as guests ; and in these cor^ 
ses it is not necessary to suffer any want (fi€talttf*fiavi$¥ de ««# 
aviot^ ztav diovxn^y, iiyt dmxo, iig rag avayxaiac autw %Qi$a9 
xoi« x<a¥ inv^tvovfiiifOiv adekqxav, cig xaxa fitidiva xQonov avtovQ 
vaifQiia^ai). 

The fifty-eighth canon likewise relates to this subject : 

Canon 58. If a bishop refuses to supply the indispensMe 
Vfants of a poor minister (namely irom the church funds) he 
3hall be set aside; and if he still refuses to do it, let him be 
deposed as a murderer of his brethren.j[^ 

At the Synod of Elvira, (in Spain, near the site of the pre- 
sent Granada,) the date of which is not entirely certain, though 
fixed with probability about the year 313, a restriction was im- 
posed on ministers, by the eighteenth canon, which however 
presupposes that in Spain the secular business of ministers was 
not yet entirely prohibited. 

Canon 18. Bishops, elders and deacons shall not lecnoe their 
place of residence for the sake of trade, nor traverse the pro^ 
vinces for the purposes of attending profitable fairs. They 
snay, for the purpose of gaining a sutsiste7u:e, send a son, or 



* Cypriani ep. 66. to the church at Furnae. Neander, sup. cit p. 
305. 

f Roller's Kbliotfaek dor Kircbenvliter, Vol. 4. p. 382, 342, 948. 



I838J ' Dr. Sdmucker's Appeal 377 

4>rfreedmany or kirelingy or friendy or any om else; and if 
they tPtsh to pursue any secular business, ht it be urithin their 
province.* 

Id accordance with these original documents, is the opinioB 
of Dr. Neander, who is cmifessedly the most learned writer of 
the present age, on the ancient history of the church. ^^ It is 
almost certain (says he) that in the beginning, those who held 
offices in the church, continued to pursue their secular business, 
and thereby supported their famiUes, as they had previously 
done. The congregations, which consisted chiefly ot the poor, 
were scarcdy able to provide for the support of their ministers 
(presbyters) and deacons, especially as at that time many other 
demands were made on the congregational treasury, such as for 
the support of the destitute widows, of the poor, of the sick, 
and of orphans. And it may be that the ministers often be- 
longed to the wealthiest members of the church, and indeed 
this must often have been the case, as their office required a 
degree of previous cultivation of mind and manners, which 
could more frequently be found among pers(His in the higher or 
middle walks of life, than among the lower classes of society. 
If it was necessary that the presbyters or bishops, as they were 
in all respects to be an example to the flock, should also have 
been distinguished among the Christians for their hospitality 
(1 Tim» 3: 2), they must have belonged to those in easy cir- 
cumstances, of wlu)m the number was not large, — and bow 
could such persons have permitted themselves to be supported 
by the savings of their more needy brethren ! The apostle 
Paul does indeed declare, that the missionaries who went abroad 
to publish the gospel, are entitled to a support from those for 
wlK)se spiritual benefit they labor, but we cannot hence jnfer 
the same in regard to the officers of ^ individual congregations. 
The former could not well unite their secular profession with 
the duties of their spiritual calling, although to the self-denid 
of Paul even this was possible. But the latter could at first 
easily combine their secular profession with their ecclesiastical 
office. Nor was Uiere any thing offensive in such a union ac- 

■^ ' * ■ ■ .11. .1... I I . I, - . ... I . ... I I I ■ ... ■■! -.^^»^l 111. « 

* Ibid. VoL 4. p. S80, 981. Bpiscopi, Presbyteri et D'mcones de 
k>ei8 suis negotiandi causa non discedant ; nee circuroeuntes provin« 
etas quaesluoaas nundicas secteutur. Sane ad victum sibi cooqairan- 
dum aut fiUum, aut libertum, aut mercenarium, aut amicum, aut quem- 
libet mittant, et si voluerint negotiari, intra provinciam negotientur. 

Vol. XI. No. SO 48 



378 Dr. iSchmucker^s Apptal. [Apeix. 

cording to the primitive views of the Christians ; fer they were 
convinced, that every earthly calling also could be sanctified by 
the christian design for which it is pursued, and they knew that 
even an apostle followed a secular business whilst engaged in 
publishing the gospel. But when the congregations became 
larger, and the duties of the church officers more numerous, 
when the duty of teaching was chiefly confined to the ministers, 
as the office of the ministers required all their time and exer* 
tions if they would perform them faithfully ; it was often no 
longer possible for them to provide for their own support, and 
the congregations having become larger, contained more wealth, 
and were now able to support them. The salary of the minis- 
ters was paid out of the congregational treasury, which was 
supplied by a voluntary contribution from each member at the 
meeting for public worship on every Lord's day, or as in North- 
em Africa, on the first Sunday of each month. Ministers were 
now urged to abstain from worldly busine^ ; and in the third 
century they were absolutely prohibited from all such employ- 
ment, even from the duties of a guardian. This regulation was 
doubtless founded on a very good reason, and was intended for 
the very salutary purpose of preventing the clergy from foiget- 
ting their sacred calling amid their worldly engagements ; for 
we see fi*om the work of Cyprian, de lapsisy that during the 
long continued peace, a worldly spirit had already crept in 
among the bishops, and that, immersed in secular business, 
they neglected their spiritual duties and the welfare of their 
churches."* 

Such then are the undoubted facts in the case. In the be- 
ginning there was not, there could not be any conflict of pecu- 
niary interest between adjoining ministers and congregations. 
But it is evident, that even after it became necessary for minis- 
ter to relinquish their secular business and be supported by 
theic congregations which they had a clear right to demand as 
^soon as the congregations were large enough to support them, 
as Paul distinctly teaches in 1 Cor. ix. scarcely any more diffi- 
culty could arise ; because, there being but one denomination of 
. Christians, there could not be several conflicting churches aim- 
ing to occupy the same ground, and the^^ases would be rare in 
which more ministers would be stationed in one place, than the 

population required and could support. 

■ I 1^—111 1 I ^——1 ■ .11 ,11 III II —^1^ I _ 

* Neander's AHgemeiRe Geschicfate der christlichen Religion und 
Kirehe, Vol. I. p. 303» 304, 305. 



1838*] Dr. Schmudcer^^ AppeaL 879 

How great the difficulties are, which now arise from this 
source is well known. Yet they might be greatly diminished 
by the plan of union hereafter pro)K)sed, if, a) the confederated 
denominations would resolve not to send into any neighbor- 
hood more ministers than would constitute a reasonable supply, 
say one to every thousand souls, b) Let all the members of 
the confederated churches, resident-in such bounds unite in sup- 
porting one and the same minister. And c) if the whole con- 
federated population of such a district is unable to furnish an 
adequate support for a minister, let application be made to the 
Home Missionary Society for aid. Thus would many labor- 
ers be spared for destitute portions of our land and of our globe, 
brotherly love would more abound in tlie church at home, and 
unity of spirit be greatly promoted. 

Remedy for these evils, or plan for the restoration of Catholic 

Union on Apostolic Principles. 

Any plan of union, in order to possess a claim to the atten- 
tion" of the different christian denominations generally, must be 
based on apostolic principles, must be accordant with the spirit 
and principles of the New Testament, or deduoible from them. 
It must leave untouched the unalienable rights and obligations 
of Christians, and therefore must possess the following attri-^ 
butes: ^ 

1. It must require of no one the renunciation of any doctrine 
or opinion believed by him to be scriptural or true. 

3. It must concede to each denomination or branch of the 
church of Christ, the right to retain its own organization, or to 
alter or amend it at option, leaving every thing relative to gov- 
ernment, discipline, and worship, to be managed by each de- 
nomination according to its own views for the time being. The 
principle of ecclesiastical associations is scriptural ; the mode of 
Its application and the extent of its use» are not decided by the 
sacred volume, and therefore are just matter for private judg<*. 
ment and progressive expmenoe. 

3. It must dissuade no one from discussing fundamentals and 
non-fundamentals in the spirit of christian love, and amicably show- 
ing why he believes some non-fundamental opinions held by any 
of hb brethren to be incorrect.— Controversies might, even exis% 
among the confederated brethren^ under the influenceof scriptural 



n 



380 Dr. Schmucker^t Appeal. [April 

union ; but they wcMild be divested of most of their bitterness, 
because the points at issue would confessedly be non-/iim/a- 
mentaly having litde or no perceptible influence on christian 
practice, involving no pecuniary loss by ejection from a pastoral 
relation, and menacing no ecclesiastical disabilities. 

4. The plan must be applicable to all tite orthodox christian 
denominations, to all that ate regarded as portions of Christ's 
visible church on earth. It must embrace all whom the apos- 
tles and primitive Christians would have admitted to the one 
catholic or universal church ; all whom God has owned by the 
influence of his Spirit and grace. Upon this ground James, 
Peter, and John admitted Paul who had formerly been a perse* 
cutor of the brethren, and " gave to him the right hand of fel- 
lowship."* The Saviour never enjoined on men the duty of 
fixing the terms of communion in his church. This he has 
himself doue in his word by precept and by the apostolic exam- 
ple ; and we are treading on forbidden ground when we sepa- 
rate those whom God by his grace and Spirit hath joined to- 
gether. This is indeed not the design of the di&rent denomi- 
nati<Kis, but is it not too true, that it is virtually the result of the 
present state of sectarinn division ? 

Having now considered the character of primitive unity, and 
the causes of discord in the different branches of the Protestant 
church ; let us take our stand on the high 'ground of apostolic 
principles, and from that elevated post survey the dtvided heri- 
tage of the Saviour, and inquire how may the spirit, and, as far 
as possible, the form of primitive unity be restored ? And may 
that blessed Saviour, who promised wisdom from above to them 
that ask it, to lead them into all necessary truth, grant us the 
tuition of his Spirit to guide and bless this humble eflbrt for the 
accomplishment of his own fervent prayer in behalf of his disci- 
ples : ** That they all may be one ; as thou. Father, art in 
me, and I in thee.'^ 

I. Some few advocates of union have proposed, that all others 
should abandon their systems and peculiarities, and unite widi 
them by conforming in all things to their views and practioe. 

As this method violates the unalienable rights and obligatiiMis 

* GaU 2: 9: M^hen James, Cephas and John, perceived the grace 
that was given unto me, they gave to me and Bamabaa the right hand 
of fellowship. 



1888.] Dr. Sdunu£ker'$ Apptid. 881 

of Christians, bj requiring the abandomnent of what they be- 
lieve truth, and the practice of what they consider error, it can- 
not be regarded as judicious, or as promising any success. It 
would, moreover, betray extreme weaiiness for any one christian 
sect at this late day, to calculate on the universal adoption of its 
peculiarities by all others. Better, &r better will it be, that all 
endeavor to forget sectarian differences, and cooperate for the 
publication oS the Gospel to the 600,000,000 of perishing 
heathen, with a degree of ardor and cordiality, which will make 
us wear the appearance of one church. 

IL It has been proposed, that each denomination should re- 
nounce its standards of doctrine and government and worship, 
and then all unite in one new, short confession, embracing only 
those doctrines held in common by all, and establishing such a 
system of government, as all could conscientiously adopt ; whilst 
eotire liberty and privilege of diversity should be enjoyed by all 
on every point not determined by the new standards. 

This plan is liberal in its principles, violates none of the un- 
alienable rights and obligations of Christians, and therefore pos- 
sesses claims of the highest order. It lacks but one attribute of 
a {MOper union for Christians, on an apostolic basis. The apos- 
tles and primitive churches maintained unity with all whom they 
acknowledged as Christians ; but this plan, we fear, is not ap- 
plicable to all orthodox christian denominations. It would 
fromise a union of the Lutherans, the Coogregationalists, the 
^resbyterians, the German Reformed, the Dutch Reformed, 
the Baptists, and, in short, of all those orthodox denominations, 
which hold parity of ministers. The Moravians, or United 
Brethren also could unite so fiir as doctrine is concerned, for as 
they adopt and have always held the Augsburg Confession, 
there would be no difficulty. The same is true so fiir as doc- 
trine is concerned, of the Episcopal church, the Methodist and 
all other churches which practise diocesan episcopacy in our 
lawL But the writer is unaUe to perceive how these denomi- 
nations could all unite on any middle ground of church govern- 
ment. We must eidier have diocesan bishops oir practise min- 
isterial parity ; and any plan, constructed on the principle of 
uniformity, must adopt either the one or the other, and could not 
enjoin both. But these churches are as orthodox and pious as 
any others, and God has as distinctly owned them as his own ; 
so that we should feel criminal in virtually pronouncing that un- 



882 Dr. Sckmudcer^s Appeal. [Afeil 

clean which God has sanctified, were we to advocate, a plan of 
union, which would exclude either the friends of ministerial 
parity or imparity. But if this plan were even feasible, its adop* 
tion would probably not result in much good ; as it would col* 
lect into one body for religious worship, those whose modes 
and habits of worship are so materially diverse as to justify the 
anticipation of but little harmony or edification. 

III. Our own plan, which appears to us more accordant with 
the requisite attributes of a plan for christian union on apostolic 

f)rinciples, more feasible, and more safe, is embraced in the fd- 
owing features : 

FiBST Feature. T%e several christian denominations shaU 
retain each its own present ecclesiastical organization^ govern-- 
ment^ discipline ^ and mode of worship. It is conceded by the great 
body of Christians, that the Scriptures do not determine all the par- 
ticulars of any system of church government^ but leave the mat- 
ter, excepting some important outlines, to the conscientious judg- 
ment and experience of the church in every age, and under 
every form of civil government ; and the few who think they 
find their entire system of government in Scripture, do not re- 
gard it as so essential as to lead them to deny the christian 
character of others. Hence every church has an equal right 
deliberately to test her forms of ecclesiastical organization by 
experience ; and diversity of practice on this point, ought nei- 
ther to preclude ecclesiastical communion, nor impede substan- 
tial union among the parties. This principle is distinctly avow- 
ed in the mother symbol of Protestantism, the Augsburg Con- 
fession : " For the true unity of the church (say the confessors) 
nothing more is required than agreement concerning the doc- 
trines of the Gospel, and the administration of the sacraments. 
Nor is it necessary, that the same human traditions, that is, rites 
and ceremonies instituted by men, should be everywhere ob- 
served.'' * It is indeed true, that whilst many churches have 
no connection whatever with each other even though contig- 
uous ; others are united together more closely than any of the 
apostolic churches were. But the questions whether and when 
they shall relax these sectarian bonds, should be left to their 
own decision. The evils of too close a union in extended bodies 
are beginning to be extensively felt ; and if through the influ- 
ence of the impartial investigation, fostered by the kind of union 

* Augsburg Confession, Art. VII. 



1696.] Dr. Sdimucker^a Appeal 868 

proposed in this Appeal, some chuicbes should reliDquish any 
features of their ecclesiastical organization, as is entirely possi* 
ble ; they have full liberty to reform themselves, and, under the 
progressive light of God's providence, gradually, to assume 
towards each other and towards the great body c^ the Protes* 
tant 6hurch, whatever relation and organization appear to them 
best adapted to the millennial age. But the attempt, to unite 
ail the churches in our land under the control of one judicatory 
of supervision, jurisdiction, and appeal, appears to the writer 
neither desirable nor safe. It would be a distinct approxima- 
tion to a new hierarchy. Very extensive courts are too cum- 
bersome for efficient action, business is retarded, power tends to 
accumulation, the rights of conscience are in danger of being 
infringed either by statute, or by an accumulated moral influ- 
ence which crushes all that refuses to submit to its dictation. 

Moreover, so long as men entertain materially different views 
of government and modes of worship, it cannot be conducive to 
harmony or edification, to press them to unite on any one form* 
The attempt to promote union by the immediate abandonmmit 
of existing organizations, would seem to be inexpedient also for 
another reason. Experience proves it dangerous suddraly to 
unsettle the long established habits of the community ; lest 
being released from the old, they fail generally to settle down 
with firmness on any thing new that is better. But the first 
feature of our plan, by stipulating that each denomination shall 
retain its organization as l(»ig as it shall see fit, provides against 
this danger, and leaves each denomination as an independent 
community to watch the efi^ts of the other features hereafter 
proposed, and decide for itself how far to accede to the terms 
of union, and how long to adhere to them. ' It also provides for 
the indulgence of exbting diversities and preferences so long as 
they shall continue ; whilst the other features will gradually 
tend to diminish them ; thus inviting external uniformity no 
faster than unity of spirit and of views has fully prepared the way. 
And, finally, this feature would leave untouched the relations, 
government and charters of the various religious, theological 
and benevolent institutions, whilst the general plan of union 
would promote unity of spirit and efficient cooperation among 
them all, for accelerating the grand enterprise of the christian 
church, to preach the gospel to every rational creature. 

Second Feature. Lei each of the confederated denomino' 
tiont formaUy resolve for itself not to discipline amy member or 



384 Dr. Sdimucker^s Appetd. [ Apxiii 

mhiUiery for holding a doctrine belief>ed by any ether denamma' 
tion whose christian character they acknowledge, provided his 
deportment be unexeeptiotidble, and he conform to the rules of 
government, discipline and worship adopted by said, demmmor 
tion. This would be actually retaining in good standing all, 
whom the apostles would have retained. And yet, such is the 
influence of habit and long familiarity with sectarian organiza- 
tions, that to some this feature of our plan will appear altogeth- 
er impracticable. But if it is so in any portion of the church, 
it must be from want of christian charity, of that grace enjoined 
by the apostle, "not to judge a brother," (Romans xir.), 
from indisposition or inability to obey the apostolic precent^ 
to receive those who are weak in the faith, bui not to douM^ 
fid disptiiation. If then it be only our want of charity which 
disqualifies us for the adoption of this feature of union, let 
us not assail it; but set about reforming ourselves, and en- 
larging our hearts, until they cordially respond to the injunction 
of the great apostle of the Gentiles, to receive those who are 
weak (in our judgment, defective,) in the faith. It b true, the 
apostle Peter denounced some as false teachers, and Paul com- 
mianded the excommunication of others ; but what were the 
crimes or heresies of which these persons were convicted ? If 
they were such as all the orthodox churches would unite in re- 
garding an ample ground of excommunication, and if in no in«- 
stance the apostles enjoined discipline, for a point which any 
orthodox denomination would regard as insufficient, then the 
apostolic example afibrds full sanction for our plan, because this 
is exactly the ground which it assumes, and by its provisbns 
all would be excluded whom the apostles would reject ; and is 
not that enough ? As to feke doctrine, ,we find Peter denounc- 
ing those as false teachers who '^ bring in damnable heresies 
(^aTg'iaug avittkilag, destructive heresies or divisions), denying 
even the Lord that bought themJ' ^ And, it is scarcely neces- 
sary to say, that such errorists would unhesitatingly be excluded 
by the terms of the proposed union, as they also were from the 
churches of the earlier centuries by the apostles' creed. Peter 
denounced Simon Magus as " having neither part nor lot in 
this matter," but it was for attempting te bribe the apostles and 
believi7^g that the miraculous gifts of (xod could be purchased 
with money. ^ The apostle Paul wishes the Ghdatians to cut 



1 9 Pet 3: 1. > Acta 8: 9, 10. 



1888.] Ih. SchmucJcer^s Appeal 385 

off certain persons,^ but they were guilty of having denied the 
doctrine of salvation by grace on account of the merits of Christ, 
they made " Christ of no effect," * maintaining (probably, not 
by inference of others) that men must be *^ justified by the 
law;"^ thus ^^ preaching another gospel,"^ and denying a fun- 
damental doctrine, held by all the orthodox denominations, that 
salvation is by grace, through the merits of Christ. And in his 
first epistle to Timothy, the same apostle predicts, that '^ in after- 
times some shall depart, (or rather, apostatize inooTi^aovTat) from 
the faith. And what was it in them which he denounced as apos^ 
tasy from the faith ? He himself informs us, that it was giving heed 
to seducing spirits," and believing the doctrines concerning (not 
devils, but datfAOvlmv demons, or^ inferior deities such as worship-^ 
ped heroes or saints, speaking lies in hypocrisy, <' having their 
conscience seared," " forbidding to marry and commanding to 
abstain from meats." Here again it will be conceded, that any 
church deserving the name of orthodox, would not hesitate to 
exclude any one who should be chargeable with the counts 
summed up by the apostle, and so mournfully applicable to the 
Romish church. And, finally, the beloved apostle John warns 
his readers against some false teachers, whom he styles anti- 
christs. But what does he represent them as teaching ? ^^ Who 
is the liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ (the 
Messiah promised in the Old Testament) ? He is the anti- 
christ, that denieth the Father and the jSon." * And " many 
deceivers are entered into the world, who do not confess that 
Jestis Christ came into the worlds this is a deceiver and an an- 
tichrist."^ Now these, if we mistake not, are all the instances 
in which the apostles either expressly enjoined excommunica- 
tion for error in doctrine, or denounced the errorists in language 
implying, that they ought to be regarded, not as erring breth- 
ren, but as apostates from Christianity ; and, as not one of 
these errors is held by any of the so-called orthodox churches, 
as every one of them is denounced by them, the plan we pro- 
pose would reach them all, and thus the rigor of discipline be 
quite as great as the apostles enjoined. 

In addition to these errors in doctrine, the apostle has enu- 
merated a list of practical abuses, as proper causes of ecclesias- 
tical discipline, lest a little leaven of sin should corrupt the 

1 Gal. 5:12. ^^lA. » 5: 4. '•1:6,8,9. 

^ 1 John 2: 33. < 3 John t. 7. 

Vol. XL No. 30. 49 



386 Dr. SckmucJcw^M Apptd* [knxu 

whole church, namely incest,^ fornicatioD, dishonesty in the pur* 
suit of wealth, idolatry, railing, drunkenness and extortion. To 
this class also belong the apostle's injunction : " A man that is 
a schismatic (^aigiti^oy, a maker of divisions or sects or parties 
in the church),^ after the first and second admonition reject," 
and that of the Saviour to exclude one who will not hear the 
church. Yet as these are not doctrinal aberrations, they are 
not afiected by the plan of union, since its first feature provides 
that each denomination shall retain its rules of government, dis- 
cipline and worship. 

And is there no passage in Scripture justifying discipline for 
doctrinal errors of a minor grade ? The apostle does indeed 
command us " earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered 
to the saints." Yet, as he does not specify how we ought to 
contend, whether by preaching, or writing, or ecclesiastical dis- 
cipline, it is uncertain whether discipline was meant. And ad- 
mitting that he also intended discipline, it seems reasonable, 
that it should be employed only in defence of those doctrines 
which were certainly delivered to the saints ; and he could not 
have meant that some saints should turn their brethren out of 
the church, for holding sentiments which others whom they 
acknowledged to be saints, and who remained in the church, 
believed to be a pait of the gospel of Christ. If excommuni- 
cation were one of the appointed means for oicertaining the 
truth, it might with propriety be applied in doubtful cases. But 
the New Testament represents it as a penalty, to be inflicted on 
those who have so criminally and materially ftrsaken the path 
of truth or of virtue, as to be unworthy of the christian name. 
Hence it ought not to be applied in reference to points on which 
Christians of equal piety, talent, and grace, are in debate, wheth- 
er they belong to the gospel of Christ or not. 

That we are not allowed in regard to matters disputed among 
Christians, to act as if we were certainly right, is evident firom 
the express injunctions of the apostles to the contrary. We are 

» 1 Cor. 5: 1 1. 

3 This version aflcr much examination neeins to the writer the true 
one. It is FUHtained by three-fourths of the best critics, such as Mi- 
chaelis, Schleusneri Wnhl, De Wette,Stohz, Heuuiann, Van Ess, Sel- 
ler, etc. But should we even n<lupt the common version, the passage 
is inapplicable, as the context does not decide what errors the apos- 
tle considered herefiies. 

» Matt. 18: 17. 



1838.] Dr. Schmudcer^t Appeal. i 187 

oommaQded to ^< receive him that is weak in the faith (him who, 
in our judgmeDt, is in error on some points) ; but not to doubt- 
ful disputations (not for the purpose of disputing about his scru- 
ples, or deciding on them).^ Again, '^ Let every one be fully 
persuaded in his own mind." Again, ** Why dost thou judge 
(condemn) thy brother ? or why dost thou set at nought thy 
brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of 
Christ.^ Paul warns Timothy against ^^ doting about questions 
and strifes of words, whereof come envy, strifes, railings, evil 
surmisings (unjust suspicions), perverse disputings of men of 
corrupt minus,'' etc.^ Again, '^ Of these things put them in 
remembrance, charging them before the Lord, that they strive 
not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hear- 
ers." And again, '^ Follow charity, peace, with them that call 
on the Lord out of a pure heart ; But foolish and (anaidinovg) 
untaught questions (which had not been decided by the cepos" 
ties) avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."^ 

We are therefore commanded on the one hand to ^^ cut off 
those antichrists who preach another gospel," and on the other, 
not to judge (pass sentence, or condemn) him whom, on the 
whole, we regard as a brother ; but to receive him and to avoid 
foolish and untaught questions, questions not clearly deci- 
ded IN Scripture. If we unite these two precepts into one, 
they will be equivalent, we think, to the general command to 
discipline men for denying what is certainly an essential part of 
the gospel of Christ, but not for any doctrine about which ac- 
knowledged Christians differ, and which is therefore doubtful. 
For we suppose the following rule will be found a fair, safe and 
tangible one : That aU those doctrines which the great body of 
aU Christians whom Ood has owned by his grace and Spirit; 
and who have free access to the Scriptures, agree in finding in 
them, are certainly taught there ; and all those points on xvhich 
they differ are less certain, are doubtful. This rule is based 
on the dictates of common sense, that if the Scriptures are a 
revelation from God to man, they must on all points necessary 
to salvation, be intelligible to all impartial and competent inqui- 
rers ; and that true Christians, who are engaged ita daily efforts 
to serve God, and who bear in their hearts and exhibit in their 
lives, the evidences of God's grace and Spirit, are the most sinr 

1 Rom. 14: 1. « 14: 5—10. « 1 Tim. 6: 4. 

4 3 Tim. 3: 14, 23. 



388 Dr. SchwuckeT^s AppeaL [Afbii. 

cere^ impartial and competent inauirers into his word. Now 
we suppose, that the great mass ot true Christians in our land 
will be comprehended not in any one sect, but in the aggregate 
of all the orthodox protestant denominations. 

Again, the judgment of each denomination, as to the most im* 
portant points of doctrine taught in the Scriptures is confessedly 
set forth by the creed which it professes. Hence those doc- 
trines which are taught in common by the creeds of all the so- 
called orthodox Protestant denominatioos, and as far as thus 
unitedly taught, may be safely regarded as clearly revealed in the 
book ot God. We limit the rule to Protestant denominations, be- 
cause in the papal sect, the mass of the people have not access 
to the word of God, and believe the doctrines of their creed 
simply because their church teaches them. It is Jimited to 
orthodox denominations, because there are unhappily some in 
our land professing to receive the Scriptures, but in reality re- 

{'ecting their divine inspiration, and, as we are constrained to 
relieve, denying the Lord that bought them, and preaching 
another Christ. Let it not be supposed, that this nde resem- 
bles tliat of the Romanists, who explain the Scriptures accord- 
ing to the pretended unanimous consent of the fathers ; for 
those fathers instead of constituting the great mass or majority 
of believers in any age, were not one in a million. Nor could 
the mass of believers in any age fall under our rule, unless they 
bad free and uncontrolled access to the Scriptures, either in the 
original, if its languages were vernacular to them, or in a faith- 
ful version. It could therefore apply only to the Protestant 
churches, and to the churches of the first few centuries before 
ecclesiastical enactments interfered with the free unbiassed 
use of the Scriptures. And concerning the opinions of the mass 
of believers in the earlier centuries, we know next to nothing, 
except that they rcceived the so-called Apostles' creed. 

We are thus conducted, by Scripture and reason, to the 
adoption of the second feature of the proposed catholic union, 
namely, not to discipline a hrothery whose deportment is tm- 
exceptionahhy and who conforms to our existing regulations of 
EovemmetUj discipline and worship^ for holding a doctrine he* 
Ueved by any acknowledged orthodox denomination. This 
practice, so far as the Scriptures enable us to judge, accords 
with that of the apostolic churches ; it certainly agrees with the 
practice of the church in the first four centuries after the apos- 
tles, for they disciplined only for the denial of a doctrine taught 



183&] Dr. SGkmiicker'M Appeal. 889 

in the Apostle^', aixl afterwards in the Nicene cr^ed, all of 
which are received by every orthodox denominatioD. Not one 
of the distinguishing points on which Protestants differ, is deter- 
mioed in either the Apostles' oi* the Nipene creed, and therefore 
it is indisputable, that any one of these denominations would 
have been received and retained (not disciplined) by all other 
portions of the so-called universal (catholic) church. 

And why ought not the different branches of the Protestant 
church to adopt this rule ? That persons difiering on these dis- 
puted doctrinal points, but agreeing in their views of church 
government, discipline and mode of worship, can live harmo- 
niously in the same church, and cooperate c(MrdialIy in the duties 
and privileges of church members, is not a matter of mere spec- 
ulative conjecture. It is a notorious fact that in every denomi"* 
nation there are not a few among the pious laity, living and cor- 
dially cooperating in the same church, who differ from each 
other, as much as the creeds of the several denominations differ* 
The writer has personally known many instances of this kind in- 
the Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopal churches, and has no 
doubt that cases equally frequent occur in the other denomina- 
tions. If this can be done by pious laymen, there is no reason 
why pious ministers could not live together in the same unity of 
spirit, notwithstanding minor differences in doctrinal views ; es- 
pecially if they were taught in their theological coursie, them- 
selves to regard as less important the several points which 
separate the orthodox churches, and in their public exercises to 
lay the more stress on the cardinal doctrines of the christian 
scheme. It is well known that in the Episcopal church minis- 
ters of different doctrinal views exist and labor in friendship. 
^' Perhaps" (says the liberal and amiable author of * Hints on 
Catholic Union,'') " there is not a shade or variety of theologiciil 
opinion, within the circle of evangelical truth, that has not had 
an advocate among the divines of the Church of England." In 
the Presbyterian church also a large number of ministers have 
believed in general atonement, whilst others, agreeably to their 
Confession, consider the atonement as limited. Yet these 
brethren have generally lived together and cooperated in peace 
until recently. At present, for reasons, into which our design 
does not urge us to inquire, these di^ring brethren in the Pres- 
byterian church are engaged in warm disputations, whilst among 

' See Hints on Catholic Union, by h Presbyter of tUef Protestant 
Epi:}co|>al Charch, p. 46. New York, 1836. 



890 Dr. JSkhmucker^s ApptaL [April 

our Episcopal brethren, the same diflferences still exist and are 
regarded with christian charity. And why should a Presbyte- 
rian, who regards a dissentient Episcopalian or a Methodist as a 
brother, condemn the memberof bis ownchurch or ministry, who 
holds similar views ? Why shogld any man regard that as heresy 
in a Presbyterian, which in a Methodist or Episcopalian, is, accord- 
ing to his own judgment, consistent with christian character, and 
comports with a life of acknowledged piety and usefulness ? The 
only conceivable difference is, that the one may be regarded as vi- 
olating the obligation of his creed, whilst the others do not violate 
it. This is indeed highly important to the character of the indi- 
vidual. No n^an should teach a doctrine which he believes to be 
inconsistent with the creed of his church, if he pledged himself 
to uphold every individual doctrine contained in it, and if his 
promise was not, as some suppose it to be, a promise to receive 
the confession as teaching the general system of truth revealed 
in Scripture. If there be diversity of opinion as to the na- 
ture of the subscription to a creed, whether it binds to every in- 
dividual doctrine, or only to the system of truths contained in it ; 
this point ought -doubtless to be first settled.^ Whilst it remains 
under dispute, every attempt at discipline will be encumbered 
lyy a double issue. The friends of liberal construction will un- 
dertake to prove, that they have not abandoned the creed 
(meaning its general system of truth) ; whilst the advocates of 
rigid construction will prove that they have not adhered to eve- 
■ ..■■-..■ ..... — , ■ , t . . . , 

^ It has been asserted on the authority of early records that the 
principle of liberal construction was adopted near the origin of the 
Presbyterian church in this country, and was practised on, and the 
fact appears to be established by the testimony of President Davies 
recently published in the " American Quarterly Register " for May 
1837, p. 316. In an extract from his diary, during a visit to England 
in behalf of Princeton College, under date March nineteenth, 1754, we 
find the following reply given by Mr. Daviea to Mr. Prior, who in- 
quired, whether the Presbyterians in America would admit any per- 
son to the ministry, without his subscribing the Westminster Confes- 
sion : *'I replied that we allowed the candidate to mention his objec- 
tions against any article in the Confession, and the judicature judged 
whether the articles objected against, were essential to Christianity ; 
and if they judged they were not, they would admit the candidate 
notwithstanding his objections. He (Mr. Prior) seemed to think that 
we were such rigid Calvinists that we would not admit an Arminian 
to communion.'* 



r 
I 



1838.] Dr. Sckmucker^M Appeal. 391 

17 incfividual doctrine, and will expatiate on the guilt of viola- 
ting the obligation imposed by the confession. 

Would it not be far better for both parties to inquire whether 
they have a right from apostolic precept or example^ ti^hind 
either themselves or others to more than the fundamental tnUh$ 
of christian doctrine^ and to as many points of government, 
discipline and worship as are actually necessary to harmonious 
cooperation 7 If the views of this Appeal be correct, then sub- 
scription to transfundanoental doctrinal creeds is always wrong, 
and if wrong then it ceases to be binding so soon as its impro- 
priety is seen, and ought to be retracted, whilst the creed should 
be reduced to fiindamentals, or subscription be required only 
'' to the fundamental doctrines of the Bible as contained in the 
creed." For,. after the failure of extended creeds to produce 
unanimity, and after their tendency to cause strife and divide 
the body of Christ, have become as certain as any other matter 
of historical record ; why should protestants continue to bind 
either themselves, or others to them ? Especially, as such ex- 
tended creeds were unheard of in the days of the apostles, and 
for hundreds of years after ? If the same word of God wbicb 
we now possess, when aided by the oral instruction and the 
personal example of the apostles, could not produce entire una- 
nimity among the primitive Christians, how could it be expected 
to effect more at the present time ? or, why should we require 
greater unanimity than the primitive Christians did, as a term of 
ecclesiastical communion ? 

So long as there is the same diversity of talent, of mental 
temperament, of habits of education, and of supposed interest, 
such diversity will continue to exist. Nor ought it to be re- 
garded as necessarily criminal, or as inconsbtent with christian 
fellowship and fidelity. EMfference on non-essentials has na 
perceptible influence on christian character and practice. There 
are differences in other departments of human knowledge, and 
some even connected with religion, of equal macgnitude, such as 
the value of a death bed repentance, the mode of treating awak- 
ened sinners and of conducting revivals, etc., and yet, because 
these points are not settled in the creed, men agree to differ on 
them, their peace and harmonious cooperation are rarely dis- 
turbed for any length of time ; for as Luther justly remarked, 
aUa est Concordia fdeif alia charitatis. Such variety of opin- 
ions on non-iiindamentals moreover, may even exert a salutary 
tendency, may stimulate men to inquiry and peacefiil discussimy 



399 Dr. SehmucJcet^t Appeal [Afkil 

thus keeping alive a healthful spirit of iovestigation^ and pre* 
veotiog the indifierence, which some have apprehended, might 
result from the absence of extensive creeds. 

Uader the operation of this feature of union, full liberty of in- 
vestigation would be allowed within the bounds of fundamen- 
tals, without the danger' of exclusion from house and home, or 
pastoral charge. And, is it not reasonable to suspect that that 
system which cannot trust itself to the full and unbiassed influ- 
ence of God's word without the artificial aid of creeds, and 
those peculiarities which need to be instilled into the youthful 
mind more explicitly than the Bible teaches them, lest they be 
lost, are erroneous, are not worth keeping ; and that permitting 
them to become obsolete, would only advance the unity of the 
church ? Every disciple of Christ ought to be willing to see 
the peculiarities of his own denomination cast into the crucible 
of God's word, and exposed to the unrestrained action of 
Bible truth and Bible principles, in order that the truth of God 
might thus be gradually developed in its full purity over the 
whole church, the breaches in Zion's walls be healed, and one 

?eouliar people zealoua of good works, be raised up to God. 
\e writer takes pleasure in being able to cite in support of his 
position the opinion of that distinguished servant of Grod, Cal- 
vin, whose zeal SigBimst fundamental errorists will not be dispu- 
ted^ but whose magnanimous liberality in reference to all but 
fundamentals, appears to be but little known and still less ap- 
preciated. He even goes much further than our plan of union 
proposes, and dissuades from schism^ if a church neglect to dis- 
cipline for the grossest immoralities ; whilst our plan proposes, 
that in regard to government, discipline and mode of worship, 
each one shall, as heretofore, connect himself with that branch 
of the church, whose forms he believes best calculated to ad- 
vance the kingdom of the Redeemer. His language, in a let- 
ter to Farrel, is this: "I only contended for this, that ^Acy 
should not create schism in any churchy which, although very 
corrupt in morals, and infected with strange doctrines, had 
not entirely departed from that doctrine, on which Paul in- 
forms Its the church of Christ is founded.^^ ^ And it was in 

1 Hoc iiniiin contendebam, ne schismate scinderent qualemcumque 
ecclesiam : quie, utcunque eaaei corrupttssima moribufi, doctrioia 
etiftin exotic'm infecta, non tameo deaciverit penitus ab ea doctrina qua 
eoeleaiain Cbristi fuodari docat Paulus. Calv. Epiat Oppw § IX. p. 6. 



1838.] Dr. Schmuckef^s Appeal 398 

the same spirit of liberality that, as he himself informs us, he 
subscribed the Augsburg or Lutheran Confession of faith, and 
declares the points of difference between the Protestant church- 
es of his day, an insufficient cause for division.^ 

Third Feature. Let a creed be adopted .including only 
the doctrines held in common by all the orthodox christian de- 
nominations, to be termed the Apostolic, Protestant Confession, 
and let this same creed be used by all denominations as the 
term of sacramental, ecclesiastical and ministerial communion. 
To this each denomination would add its present Formularies 
for government, discipline and mode of worship, which it might 
also change or amend from time to time, at its own option, and 
in its own way. Each denomination might also use its former 
creed as a book of instruction to whatever extent it saw proper. 

The new creed should consist of two parts, a) The so-called 
Apostles^ Creed.^ This little formulary has already been 
adopted by four fifths of the Protestant church, by the Luther- 
ans in the difi^rent kingdoms of Europe, by the Episcopalians 
in Europe and America, and by the Presbyterian church in this 
country and probably also in Great Britain. The doctrines con- 
tained in it are embraced by every orthodox Protestant denomi- 
nation on earth. The adoption of this confession would estab- 
Ibh the doctrinal idenity of the confederated churches, with that 
of the apostoKc age, and of the first four centuries ; which is a 
matter of no small moment in the popular mind, and has been too 
much neglected by Protestants, b) The second part should be 
styled The United Protestant Confession, consisting of a selec- 
tion of those articles from the creeds of the prominent Protes- 
tant churches, in which all can agree, taking but one article on 
each subject. As each of these churches acknowledge the 
christian character of the others, they all virtually admit, that the' 
creed of each church contains every thing essential on the doc- 
trine which any given article treats ; whilst each one believes 
the creed of the other to contain minor errors on some points. 
Now, if a selection can be made from all the creeds, which wUl 
contain an article on every topic necessary to be introduced, 
and yet not include any peculiar aspects of doctrines on which 
the parties differ; all denominations can evidently adopt it; 
for they fully believe it, and have already acknowledged its 

1 EpiBt. Schalingio^p. 113. Farello, p. 9. Mason's Plea, p. 182, 18a 
' For a copy of this Creed, See page 121. 
Vol. XI. No. 30. 50 



894 Dr. Sdtmudcer^s Appeal. [Apbu 

christian character by acknowledging as brethren those who 
profess it. And if in order to complete such a creed, it would 
be necessary' to strike out some minor speci6cation8 from anj 
article of tfae existing creeds, in order to make it unexceptiona- 
ble to all parties, it is evident, that if nothing be added, ail can 
still adopt it, because the thing erased must be non-essenUal, as 
it is one on which the confederated denominations differ. 

It might be thought preferable by some, that a general coun- 
cil of the liberal-minded of all denominations should be called to 
deliberate and form an original creed, covering the common 
ground of the Protestant churches. But the testimony of ex- 
perience is not strongly in favor of the probable results of such 
a convention. The whole field of theological topics would 
have to be passed over, and the discussions entered on anew 
which Were passed through in the original formation of the sev- 
eral creeds. But by the far simpler plan here proposed, all 
these difficulties are obviated. We have in the creed of each 
denomination the result of its deliberations on all these points. 
Taking these as the separate voices of the different churches, 
we can by the principles above suggested, without difficulty 
frame one creed, in which these voices shall unitedly be heaid 
proclaiming the common fiiith of all God's people. As the 
method proposed neither requires nor admits the composition of 
a single original sentence, it will not be thought presumptuous in 
the writer to attempt the application of his own rules. He has 
accordingly formed such a rrotestant confession, and appended 
it to this Appeal. 

These two parts would constitute the Apostolic^ Protestant 
Confession, required by the third feature of the proposed union. 
The necessity and advantages of such a creed are evident. 

1. In order to keep heretics out of the church ofOod. The 
duty of the church to exclude from her communion all who de- 
ny a fundamental doctrine, is admitted by all whose union is 
contemplated in this plan. The apostle John expressly de- 
clares, '' If there come any unto you, and bring not this doc- 
trine," (concerning the person of Christ, bis real and not mere- 
ly feigned appearance in the flesh, as the gnostics asserted v. 7, 
and 1 John 4: 2) receive him not into your house, neither bid 
him God speed ; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker 
of his evil deeds." ^ Now in order to bring men to the test, 



19 John 10,11. 



len.] Dr. iSUbMidter'a Appeal. 896 

whose fundamental soundness is suspected, it is absolutely ne- 
cessary^ to have a creed, either written or nuncupatory. But 
whilst the principle of both is the same, a written creed has 
many confessed advantages, and must necessarily constitute one 
feature of our catholic union. And having thus enlarged the 
ground of christian forbearance, and confined the test to the 
truths held in common by the orthodox churches, the utmost 
fidelity, and uncompromising spirit ought, and it is believed^ 
would be displayed, in the discipline and the excommunication 
of any and every one, who denies a single doctrine actually 
taught (not by mference) in the common preed. One princi- 
pal cause of laxity in executbg discipline for doctrinal devia- 
tions from the diffirent creeds, is undoubtedly the conviction, 
derived from Scripture and reason, that the errors impugned are 
too trifling to deserve discipline. 

9. Such a creed is necessary y to give prominence to the great , 
acknowledged truths of Chrtstianuy. 

a) It has been doubted whether it is possible to give special 
prominence to the grand doctrines of Christianity, without be- 
coming incoherent, or illogical, or vapid ; but its practicability 
has often been demonstrated by facts, and ought therefore not 
to be dbputed. The writer many years ago, for some time 
attended the preaching in the college chapel at Princeton, 
where the professors of the Seminary and College alternately 
officiated, all of whom were Calvinists ; yet he rarely heard a 
sentiment conflicting with Lutheranism, and very rarely heard 
the peculiarities of any sect introduced. The reason is, that 
those excellent men, feeling that there were in that college, 
students from all churches, were disposed to avoid unnecessary 
offence, and yet they dwelt on the whole circle of undisputed 
christian doctrine. None who heard them would wish more 

^ On this subject we would refer the reader to a ^ Lecture on Creeds 
and Confessions/* by Rev. Dr. Miller of PrincetoD, coDtaining many 
very sound arguments in fuvor of their indispens^ible necessity to the 
purity of the church. Whether the author would consent to the 
modifications of the subject proposed in this Appeal, and confine the 
doctrinal specifications of the creed to the common ground of Protes- 
tantism, we know not. Yet we are almost led to hope so from the 
fact that all the cases adduced by him, to show the necessity of in- 
cluding non-fiindamental matters in it, are cases belonging to gov- 
ernment^ discipline or forms of worship, on which this plan proposes 
tiMt the sectarian standarda may be retained. 



396 Dr. SchmucJcer^s Appeal. [ArKii* 

edifying, practical and profitable preaching. The volume of 
Sermons and Addresses by Dr. Green, published soon after he 
resigned the presidency of that institution, probably contains 
some of the sermons then deUvered by him. Of that volume, 
a review was soon after published in the Christian Aijvocate, 
and the writer distinctly recollects that the reviewer applauded 
the unsectarian character of the discourses, and pronounced 
them free from every thing to which Christians of any religious 
denomination could with propriety object. The opinion of the 
reviewer is cited because the writer has not read the work, and 
therefore could not speak for himself. As indisputable speci- 
mens of most excellent religious discussion confined to the un- 
disputed truths of Christianity, the common ground of the or- 
thodox churches, we may cite the publications of the American 
Tract Society, and of the American Sunday School Union. 
We might cite the Sermons of president Davies, Doddridge's 
Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul, Burder's Village 
Sermons, and a number of other invaluable works as substan- 
tially confined to the grand, cardinal doctrines of Christianity. 
And is it not a notorious fact that these and other similar publi- 
cations, are the works which have exerted the greatest influence 
in producing the evangelical spirit and enterprise of the present 
day ? Has not the blessed Saviour so signally blessed these 
works, above all others of a sectarian character, as specially to 
encourage their multiplication, not indeed so as to exclude oth- 
ers, but to give greater prominence to these ? 

b) Prominence ought to be given to these undisputed doc- 
trines, because they alone are certainly true. It has been 
stated, that the aggregate of doctrines believed by the different 
orthodox denominations may be divided into two classes, those 
that are believed by them all, and those which are believed by 
some and disbelieved by others. As men of equal piety, talent 
and learning differ in r