every where in the cities larger and smaller fabrics; that among them was the noble church in Nicomedia, the residence of the emperor, which Diocletian commanded, along with all the other Christian churches in the whole Roman empire, to be levelled to the ground. Rudelbach then shows that proper parochial limits, in the later sense of the word, were not erected. He then says that it is by no means his intention to assert that the parochial system was an immediate consequence of the sinking, or of the weakness, of the Christian church life, or of prevailing secularity in the clerical order, or of both together. He will not make the assertion, that the great change which entered when Christianity was raised by Constantine the Great to be the state-religion of the Roman empire, stood in such inseparable connection with it that it must be regarded as its necessary consequence. As that degeneracy did not at once ripen, the so parochial system-which was only a single member in the whole development-did not exist at once as a finished formation. But with all emphasis, it is added, we must accentuate the fact that, without such a dissolution of its holy and spiritual powers, there could not have arisen what is so destructive in the parochial system to the character of the church; and that in this respect the halving of church government, as Constantine called it in jest, but yet in good earnest, forms one of the decisive moving forces. Eusebius mentions (iv. 24), and he was himself present, that Constantine once said at table to the assembled bishops: "Ye are bishops over all internal affairs of the church, and I am appointed by God bishop of the external." And Rudelbach remarks, in a note, that Constantine understood, as well as many of the later princes, how to make use of this distinction in order

to pave the way for a dominion IN the church and OVER the church.

The next article with the title Versöhnliches über Brennende Kirchenfragen der Zeit by Guericke, discusses from his point of view the points in which the Lutherans and the Reformed differ. It is written in a more generous tone than is usual with Guericke, arising probably from the treatment which he has recently received from the sectarian separated Lutherans. But it is not yet by any means the tone which is necessary between the churches. The article travels over the entire contents of Christian dogmatics, which he divides into four principal divisions, and then discusses in order-GOD, THE WORLD, CHRIST, THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. He shows how far in all these four widely ramifying parts the Lutheran and Reformed dogmatics maintain a consensus and a dissensus. He says, as to the question whether we accentuate the latter at the cost of the former, that is certainly to be left doubtful to nobody. We cast far away from us the reproach that our Lutheranism, and that true Lutheranism generally, does so. He then proceeds to expatiate at great length, and in a very instructive way, on the amount of positive doctrinal agreement between the two systems, and on the amount of diversity between them, which, however in this place just turns on the well known four articles of difference with the colouring which other articles receive from their application. Then he discusses the bearing of the cabinet-order to the 6th March 1852, and the instruction of the evangelical oberkirchenrath of the 12th May.

The next article in the first quarterly number, which is from the pen of Voss, and entitled vwv yevvnoйvar, gives us an exegetical and a dogma historical discussion of the all-important subject. The writer

has great conceptions of what is necessary to write a commentary on John: and he says, it seems to us that to write a commentary on the holy evangelist demands a different inward and outward disposition than the present time renders possible. The ancient Fathers themselves felt, near as they stood to John, what an angel labour it is to expound the depths of his views (wgnuáras imsgnpava.) He quotes Origen's remark, τολμητέον τοίνον ἐιπεῖν ἀπαρχὴν μὲν πασῶν γραφῶν εἶναι τὰ ἐυαγγέλια τῶν δὲ ἐυαγγελίων ἀπαρχὴν τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην οὗ τὸν νοῦν ουδεὶς δύναται λαβεῖν μη ἀναπεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ ̓Ιησοῦ. The writer then marks the first division of his Essay as the satanological part, in which he has long ago shown himself well versed. But the paper as a whole, with all its excellence, is unconnected; and it is executed with so much of feverish censure and aimless excitement, that it very much defeats its own object. Then follows a short and somewhat fanciful paper on diabolology. And another follows which is called a type of the holy Trinity, based upon a very fanciful accentuation of the names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to the mystery of the Trinity.

The second quarterly number, besides the extensive and valuable notices of new works which usually form a half of every number, has some valuable papers which we can but name. One by Pastor Hellweg, on the Lutheran Church of their Fathers, is designed, as the title bears, to supply an awakening image of the original glory, faith, and life, of the Lutheran Church in its best times, and of the contrast which has followed. Another paper is on the state of the office-question. Another is a personal question, describing Professor Guericke's relation to the separated Lutherans, together with the manner in which he was led to officiate to one of their congregations in Halle, and the causes which led to the dissolution of that connection-a painful picture of exclusiveness and of assumption on their part, which it is to be hoped will have its enlarging effect on Guericke's own mind.

The only other article which we shall particularly notice is a learned essay on Jephthah's sacrifice by Dr Kurtz. The design of the paper is to establish the different side of the question from that adopted by Hengstenberg, who maintains that Jephthah's daughter was not slain. Hengstenberg's essay is here acknowledged to be epoch-making for the defence of that particular view which he has adopted, as well by the strict sifting of the previous means of proof as by the production of new arguments. This essay of Kurtz is a refutation of Hengstenberg's view. Hengstenberg, it is said, begins with the confession that the oldest translators, that Josephus and the whole Fathers of the church, knew no other interpretation than that of a bloody sacrifice. But proceeding to the matter itself, Kurtz says that he will first examine the new arguments with which Hengstenberg supports his view. Hengstenberg understands the offering of Jephthah as a burnt-offering, or such a sort of dedication to God in persons as corresponded to the burntoffering among animals, an entire unreserved life-long dedication; and Kurtz replies that this supposes Jephthah to have held the bloody offering of men to be as irreconcilable with the true notion of sacrifice as the lawgiver of Israel did. Hengstenberg's chief arguments are drawn from Exod. xxxviii. 8: he argues for the perpetual custom of women serving at the door of the tabernacle; and Kurtz asks where in all the world does it stand recorded in that passage that women served NO. VI. 3 F

at the door of the tabernacle in consequence of a vow? where does it stand recorded that they served their life-long? where that they were bound to virginity? He shows that the woman, whether daughter or spouse, was certainly not sui juris as the man was. According to a wise appointment of the law, therefore, (Numb. xxx. 4-17), the vow of a daughter or of a wife could then only be regarded as valid when the father or the husband expressly or tacitly gave his consent to it. A married woman was thus just as much and just as little entitled to take a Nazarite vow or any other vow as an unmarried virgin was entitled to do so. The Old Testament was infinitely far from seeing any thing meritorious in celibacy. The very opposite idea rather obtained. To the Old Testament Israelite, marriage stood infinitely higher than the unmarried life. Again, Hengstenberg appeals to Luke ii. 37, where Anna is spoken of as departing not from the temple, but serving God with fasting and prayers night and day, and to this Kurtz replies: 1. The proof that Anna belonged to the institute of ministering women is utterly awanting, and it is impossible to furnish such a proof; 2. Distingue tempora, Hannah lived at a time when the Old Testament worship was near its fulfilment.! Kurtz says, My view of the origin and progress of the institute of ministering women is the following: it arose at the erection of the tabernacle, not by divine command or appointment, but entirely of itself, and by a combination of outward circumstances. Hengstenberg argues: 1. That the offering of human sacrifices was decidedly opposed to the spirit as well as to the letter of the religion of Jehovah; 2. One would expect that in the narrative the enormity of the death of a daughter by the father's hand would be intimated only by the word proper to such a deed; 3. One does not see how the only subject of her complaint is her virginity; 4. The Mosaic law knows nothing of vows in reference to human sacrifices, but it does know of vows which have for their object a dedication of relatives to the service of the Lord; 5. Such a revolting occurrence as the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter could not have been the subject of a national feast of a joyous nature in honour of the event. These arguments Kurtz attempts to refute in succession. He discusses them severally with his usual acuteness and learning, but we must add not to our satisfaction. He then concludes his paper by adducing independent arguments for the view which he has adopted. The letter of the text he holds forms an irrefragable proof for the corporal offering: and he insists that the burnt-offering mentioned in the text just means a burnt-offering, while he endeavours also to turn aside the edge of all the texts advanced by Hengstenberg. He concludes by saying that there is no meaning in the daughter requesting two months to bewail her virginity. Pfeiffer thought that unnecessary, cum monasterio inclusæ licuisset flere ad satietatem" And finally, he asks what ground could the narrator have had for so veiling the matter, or for speaking so ambiguously and in a way so liable to be misunderstood, if he only meant a Nazaritic vow?

66

MISCELLANIES.

OWEN AND WALTON.

[From Prefatory Note, by Dr Goold, to Owen's Treatise "on the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text."-Owen's Miscellaneous Works (New Edition), Vol. XVI., p. 345.*] THERE is a tendency to acquiesce in the general verdict against our author for the part he took in the controversy with Walton on the subject of the London Polyglott, without any very careful inquiry into the grounds on which it rests. Dr Owen, we are convinced, has been the victim of unintentional misrepresentation on this point, partly through the dexterous management of Walton, partly through his own want of caution in properly defining his position, and partly because on some points he was completely in error. Dr Twells, in his biography of Pococke, accuses Owen of writing against the Polyglott; and Mr Todd, in his biography of Walton, bitterly re-echoes the charge. Even his friendly biographer, Mr Orme, intimates that he viewed the Polyglott "with jealousy or disapprobation." No statement could be more unfounded. Transparent honesty and perfect truthfulness were leading features of his character; and we cannot think of him as speaking in any other terms but those of warm and unfeigned admiration, when he eulogises the Polyglott as "a noble collection," "a great and useful work," "which he much esteemed," and when he declares that he "would never fail, on all just occasions, to commend the usefulness of the work, and the learning, diligence, and pains of the worthy persons that have brought it forth." Dr Chalmers, also, in reference to this controversy, censures Owen as "illiterate" for the views he expressed in it, and contrasts "the lordly insolence of the prelate" with "the outrageous violence of the puritan." There is more of alliteration than truth in the contrast. Walton's short-lived prelacy did not begin till after his controversy with Owen; and the charge of "outrageous violence" against the latter appears to have been suggested by the misrepresentation of his antagonist. Owen professed a desire to conduct the dispute with Christian candour and moderation of spirit;" and, on the whole, he redeemed his pledge.

On the minute and multifarious details of biblical literature, our author assuredly must yield the palm to Walton. It was not his province. But the real merits of the controversy between them involve two questions, and by his opinions on these it must be judged whether the condemnation so unspairingly heaped on him is altogether well founded. These questions relate to the various readings in the original text of Scripture, and to the antiquity of Hebrew punctuation.

1. On the subject of various readings, Owen had submitted, in the epistle dedicatory, at the beginning of the former treatise, ample evidence that Papists had resorted on a great scale to the artifice of magnify

* We regret that we have not been able to advert in this No., as we had intended, to the completion of this noble undertaking. We shall do so in our next.

ing the corruption of the text, in order to exalt the Vulgate and support the claim of their church to infallibility. As critical research multiplied the various readings by the inspection of the ancient codices, Protestant divines took alarm, and, trembling for the ark of truth, discountenanced such inquiries. That Owen was altogether free from the panic, cannot be affirmed. We must sympathise, however, with any pious jealousy for the honour of the holy oracles, in an age when sound principles of criticism had not been clearly established. It will be new, moreover, to many readers, who have hitherto assumed as true the charge against Owen of ignorant antipathy to the duties and advantages of sacred criticism, when they are told that he not only admitted the existence of various readings, but held that if any others could be discovered from a collation of manuscripts, they "deserved to be considered;" differing in this respect from Dr Whitby, who, at a later period, in 1710, published his "Examen Variantium Lectionum," in opposition to Mill's edition of the New Testament, taking up ground from which Owen would have recoiled, and insisting that every word in the common text stood as originally written,-"in iis omnibus lectionem textûs defendi posse." Owen acknowledged and proclaimed the fact, that in spite of all the variety in the readings, not a single doctrine was vitally affected by them. In regard to them he objected to the unnecessary multiplication of very trivial differences, an objection of no moment, stated in a single sentence, and never afterwards pressed. He objected further to the practice of Cappell, in making innovations on the received text by the authority of translations only, on the ground that these translations were made from copies essentially different from any now extant. He exonerates Walton from this error, but deems him not sufficiently careful to refrain from admitting into his Polyglott readings gathered from such a source. It was against Cappell's theory that he chiefly wrote; and some strong expressions used in regard to it are quoted by Walton, in his reply to the following treatise, as directed sweepingly against the Polyglott. Few now would ratify the innovations of Cappell. Dr Davidson, in his standard work on biblical criticism, "sighs over the groundless conjectures introduced into parts of the Old Testament text by Cappell." Owen's main objection, however, reproduced frequently in the course of his tract, was against the attempt to amend the text by mere conjecture. There is still a diversity of opinion as to the legitimacy of this source of criticism. Griesbach repudiated the use of it in his edition of the New Testament. Marsh would avail himself of it in regard to the Old Testament, but not in regard to the New. Davidson reckons the cautious use of it lawful in regard to both. At all events, Walton himself professed to discard it as an instrument of criticism; and yet, as Owen shows, he admitted into the Polyglott the conjectural emendations of Grotius. Even Simon, an admirer of Grotius, while commending his notes, complains that he "sometimes multiplies the various readings without necessity." So far, therefore, as it was a question of principle between them, Walton was not in advance of Owen. So far as it was a ques tion of fact, Owen had rather the best of the dispute.

2. As to Hebrew punctuation, Owen held the points to be part of Scripture, and as sacred and ancient as the other elements of the text. Here he may have erred, but it was in honourable company,-with the