lute truth, we fully admit. That, in the last resort, the intellect must fling aside its theories and its proofs, and accept religion by an act of pure and simple faith, we devoutly believe. But, following him so far, we are not ready to accept his summons to throw ourselves into the arms of a creed that addresses us in the tone of mere dictation and authority, though the authority were that of the Anglican Church itself. That the mind of man must bow in reverence before the revelation of the Word from heaven, and not impose its petty limitations upon the truth of God, is as clear to our thought as if we accepted the letter of a book or the decree of a council. And, once disengaged from the prejudices of a school-training, Mr. Mansel cannot help seeing that there may be an order of religious belief, a system of religious thought, differing as widely from his own as the heaven of Herschel from the heaven of Ptolemy, yet accepted by precisely the same reverent, simple, and childlike faith of a mind conscious of its impotence to solve the vast problem of the universe, and surrendered as devoutly to the guidance of a mightier hand.

We are glad to recognize in this volume, not only a wealth of learning that makes it a suggestive and valuable study to every religious thinker, not only a vigor of intellectual statement which constantly commands our attention and respect, but also the evidences of a mind richly developed by culture, trained by manly and scholarly discipline, always earnest, serious, and devout, and sometimes eloquent in the assertion of its honest thought. We quote with admiration the following words from the concluding paragraph:

"Know thyself in the various elements of thy intellectual and moral being: all alike will point reverently upward to the throne of the Invisible; but none will scale that throne itself, or pierce through the glory which conceals Him that sitteth thereon. Know thyself in thy powers of Thought, which, cramped and confined on every side, yet bear witness, in their very limits, to the Illimitable beyond. Know thyself in the energies of thy Will, which, free and yet bound, the master at once and the servant of Law, bows itself under the imperfect consciousness of a higher Lawgiver, and asserts its freedom but by the permission of the Almighty...... Man is never so weak as when he seems to be strongest, standing alone in the confidence of an isolated and self-sufficing Intellect; he is never so strong as when he seems to be weakest, with every thought, and resolve, and passion, and affection, from the highest to the lowest, bound together in one by the common tie of a frail and feeble Humanity. He is never so weak as when he casts off his burdens, and stands upright and unencumbered in the strength of his own will; he is never so strong as when, bowed down in his feebleness and tottering under the whole load that God has laid upon him, he comes humbly before the throne of grace, to cast his care upon the God who careth for him." — pp. 227, 228.

$ THE North British Review insists that "Socinianism” * was, and is, nothing but the destructive element in Protestantism; that it can never have a history of its own, or a constructive theology; that as an organized thing it can never exist, but tends always to dispersion, denial, and self-destruction, – the last, worst, and most characteristic phase of it

*In the number for May, 1859.

being "Liberal Christianity." Whether to confirm or confute this prognostication, we mark three recent tendencies in it, or growing out of it, - besides that towards pure naturalism, which seem to imply that it still fulfils its mission, of setting men upon independent lines of thinking.

The oscillation of some few minds - not, perhaps, among the more able and cultivated — towards the forms of the old theology, is well enough represented by a small volume of Sermons by Mr. Gage,* who takes his hearers by surprise with the declaration that Unitarianism is a "failure"; professes so zealous an adhesion to the Trinity, that Channing seems to him to have never understood the faith he was bred in, and Bushnell barely escapes the imputation of heresy; and it is doubtful, on the whole, if the Trinity has ever been quite rightly understood, until the expositions of Neander and the new German Orthodoxy! As a criticism of movements, ideas, or men, the volume is valueless; as the expression of some phases of personal feeling and experience, one is interested by an earnest and sincere tone in it; and it is worth noting as one of the symptoms of religious thought. Its charge of denominational weakness upon the Unitarians is one which we suppose they cheerfully accept. It is the old argument against protest, from Bossuet down; and need not have been urged with the emphasis and acrimony here and there apparent. It is right that those who feel like Mr. Gage should testify their sincerity, and seek the supply of their wants, by reverting to the Orthodox fold. We have no quarrel with any honest testimony to a spiritual want, or any following of a sincere conviction. But the tone of criticism he has adopted is as out of place in so recent a recantation of fatal error, as the assumption of superior Orthodoxy in so recent a convert to saving truth.

6.76.4.

DR. BELLOWS's Sermon * insists strongly and eloquently on the need of positive religious opinion as a basis of church fellowship and strength; and particularly as to the critical and cardinal point of an historic revelation in Jesus, to which all doctrinal differences are made subordinate. We consider that the Sermon does injustice to the style of thought prevalent of late years in the Liberal pulpit; which, in our view, and certainly in the person of its abler men (Dr. Bellows among the rest), has done a great deal, not only in the way of intellectual discussion in general, but in particular to make clear and firm the grounds of religious opinion in the direction where that task was most needed. And we doubt whether, on the whole, anything better could be done. There has not been the body of sound, fresh scholarship, or the broad knowledge of the progress of scientific and constructive criticism, or the firm grounding in the elementary principles of religious belief, to make possible a system of opinion such as is here spoken of, or of any

*Trinitarian Sermons preached to a Unitarian Congregation. By Rev. W. L. GAGE. Boston: J. P. Jewett & Co.

+ The Importance of a Positive and Distinct Theology. By Rev. H. W. BELLOWS, D. D. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co.

independent value if it were possible. We mean, of course, among the majority of the Liberal, as of every other, religious communion. And against the high authority and eloquent language of this pamphlet, we hold that as much of the needful preliminary work has been done as could reasonably have been hoped. Any more positive conviction as to those other points must be the result, and not the previous condition; must grow from the stock of scholarship and independent thought now maturing, and not by any forced or wilful process seek to anticipate its fruits. This we suggest, not as a criticism of Dr. Bellows's own thought, for he is as well aware of it as we, - but as a point to be borne in mind, to make his argument rightly understood.

WHETHER in harmony with this tendency or not, we hardly know. we find symptoms of a movement calling itself "Broad Church," after the epithet applied by the Edinburgh Review, a few years ago, to the "Arnold" section of the Church of England. We are sorry that a name should be chosen before the thing exists, unless potentially, — at least, that it should be made at all prominent or emphatic. Saving this ground of a possible prejudice, the scheme of bringing together the earnest words of men in various communions, pleading for a common faith catholic and comprehensive enough to meet the deeper wants of all, seems one of the best, to promote a more intelligent comprehension of Christian truth, and a more enlightened piety, in the body of the several denominations. The need and the grounds of worship, as the most sacred bond of fellowship, are set forth in Dr. Osgood's discourse, with earnestness and ability.

ALFORD'S "Greek Testament"† is without doubt the most valuable edition of the Greek Testament with English notes which has yet appeared. The high price of the English edition has greatly limited its use ; and the Messrs. Harper deserve the thanks of all theological students in this country for republishing it in so elegant and attractive a form. The only editions which can challenge comparison with it are those of Bloomfield and Wordsworth; and both of these are decidedly inferior.‡ The older works of Valpy and Burton are not to be mentioned in comparison with it; and Webster and Wilkinson's is designed for students of a lower class. Bloomfield's Greek Testament, though the nine editions which have been sold of it in England, to say nothing of the American reprint, attest the want which has been felt of a work of this kind, is altogether behind the age. Though Bloomfield lays down the law on critical points, " after a study of the Greek language," to borrow his own words, 66 as diligent, and an acquaintance with its writers, of

66

The Broad Church Pulpit. No. I. The Broad Altar. By Rev. SAMUEL OSGOOD, D. D. New York: Burt, Hutchinson, and Abbey.

†The Greek Testament, with a critically revised Text, a Digest of Various Readings, Marginal References, Prolegomena, and a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. By HENRY ALFORD. Vol. I. Containing the Four Gospels. New York: Harper and Brothers. (From the Third London Edition.)

We speak from an examination of only one volume of Wordsworth.

every age, probably as extensive as any person, at least of my own country, now living," his philological notes are often founded on notions now universally rejected by all intelligent grammarians. For him such writers as Hermann, Bernhardy, Krüger, and Winer have labored in vain. In everything which concerns the criticism of the text, Alford's edition is also immeasurably superior. Alford occasionally dogmatizes on theological and exegetical points in an offensive manner, but on the whole shows a good degree of candor and fairness of mind; Bloomfield is a bigot.

Alford's views of inspiration are liberal; see his Prolegomena, pp. 12, 13, 15-21, and notes on Matt. xx. 29-34, xxvi. 69–73, xxvii. 9,

etc.

He is not afraid to alter the "Received Text" when critical evidence requires it. See his notes on Matt. vi. 13, Mark xvi. 9 – 20, John v. 3, 4, and vii. 53 – viii. 11.

For an extraordinary specimen of nonsense, partly borrowed, see his note on John i. 3, where he says, "The Father has no will, except the Son, who is all his will (ev evdóknσev). [What an interpretation of this expression!] The Christian fathers rightly therefore rejected the semi-Arian formula, The Son was begotten by an act of the Father's will'; for He is that Will himself."

Though a better Greek scholar than Bloomfield, his philology is not always accurate. Thus he adopts, in his note on Matt. xx. 23, in opposition to Fritzsche, De Wette, Meyer, Robinson, Wahl, and Winer, the wholly untenable supposition that aλá is put for el un. In that passage the dative ois is only to be explained by the ellipsis of dolnσetai, and, this fact being recognized, it is obvious that ảλλá has its ordinary and proper meaning. It is to be feared that theological bias has influenced his view of this passage. The passage in Mark ix. 8 to which he and others have referred to support this pretended use of ¿λá is correctly explained by Winer (§ 53. 10. 1, p. 400, 6o Aufl.), and Alford, borrowing from Meyer, as usual, has correctly explained it himself!

In Luke xxiv. 18, to judge from his translation, he has failed to perceive the idiom, and wholly mistaken the meaning. For the true explanation, see De Wette or Meyer, or Winer, § 66. 7, p. 554.

He says in his note on John i. 1, p. 611, " In the classics the word Móyos never signifies the subjective faculty of reason, but the reason to be given, objectively, of any thing or things." Surely he cannot have attended to its use in such passages of Plato as De Rep. Lib. VII. p. 529, D, where he speaks of things which are λόγῳ μὲν καὶ διανοίᾳ ληπτά, ὄψει δ' οὔ, or to others in which λόγος is connected with νόησις οι φρόνησις . as kindred in meaning. (See Ast's Lexicon Platonicum.) This sense is so well established, that Rost and Palm, in their excellent edition of Passow, after giving the definition "das Vermögen des Denkens, die Vernunft," do not deem it necessary to cite particular examples, but simply refer to "Plato and others."

* Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews.

SCIENCE.

IT is difficult to conceive of a more futile attempt to do some great thing, than that made by Dr. Hickok.* He would first, by reasoning on a priori grounds alone, establish the being of an absolutely infinite Creator; then, by similar reasoning, show what sort of a creation Infinite Wisdom and Power must make, and what its special laws and facts must be. He thinks the time has come when, in the development of the human mind, we are able to forsake both deductive and inductive logic, and to reach even physical truths by intuitions of the reason! Matter must consist simply of three forces exerted by the Almighty Will, two of which are "antagonistic" by their balancing producing vis inertia and gravity, and the third a "diremptive" force which is the essence of heat. From the three forces, he would by a priori reasoning deduce Laplace's theory, and all the principles and laws of mechanics, astronomy, acoustics, optics, chemistry, geology, electricity, magnetism, &c., &c. Such a field of thought as this is surely to be entered with great humility, and only by one whose aptitude for physical science and whose attainments in mathematical learning are equal to his metaphysical ability. But Dr. Hickok is exceedingly bold, appearing to regard the light of Reason in his soul as an omniscient and infallible guide. Nor does he show any peculiar fitness either for mathematical or physical studies. The folly of his whole attempt is manifest from this simple fact. In going over so extended a ground as the whole range of physical science, he of course occasionally misconceives an established principle, or misunderstands an actual experimental fact, but he never fails to demonstrate the truth of his false views just as easily as of his correct views. For instance we find, on page 134, the following words:

"If a force be steadily applied to a heavy body, it will at first be still motionless, but a continued strain at length puts the whole in motion. If I crowd against a boat floating by [at] the wharf, I must perpetuate the pressure for some considerable time before the boat will move. Each point in the body to be moved is a static force, holding itself in its position by its own antagonism, and the force applied must pass from the point of immediate pressure successively through every point to the most remote; and it is only when the last is reached and overcome, that the whole mass can be ejected from its place. The force has been constantly going on to the mass, but it has been apparently dormant, or truly latent, until the whole pressure upon the centre of the body has been overcome, and then the mass moves off together."

Now, of these four sentences, the first and fourth give as a general fact, and the second as an illustration of that fact, statements which are simply not true, but in which Dr. Hickok is entirely mistaken as to the experimental facts of the case. Of course the argument in the third sentence, by which he fancies that he demonstrates his statement, must be fallacious. Yet it is just as sound as four fifths of the reasoning of the whole book. We have said that Dr. Hickok is occasionally mistaken,

Rational Cosmology; or the Eternal Principles and the Necessary Laws of the Universe. By LAURENS P. HICKOK, D. D., Union College. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1858. 8vo.

pp. 397.