would be quite willing to have such a discrepancy made out. Now should we take the ground that the rocks were not formed by secondary causes, but instantaneously by the power of God, with all their organic contents, or that they were deposited by "partial floods and earthquakes and successive ones," between the creation of man and the Noachian deluge, or by that deluge; all of which theories have been strenuously maintained by physico-theological writers, we are quite certain that we could not defend ourselves against these infidel geologists, in the view of those who are acquainted with the science. If on the other hand, we maintain with professor Stuart, that the words of Moses do not admit of any other interpretation than the common one, in respect to the age of the world, this is just what gratifies the infidel; for he feels sure that we thus virtually acknowledge discrepancy between the two records. But if we contend that Moses' words admit of a construction consistent with geological principles, then many of our Christian brethren, whom we highly respect as philologists, or theologians, and love as fellow pilgrims to a better world, become jealous of us and regard us as doing injury to the sacred cause of religion. In such a dilemma what can we do? Of one thing we can assure the sceptical geologist on the one hand; and the Christian, jealous for the honor of God's Word, on the other, We shall never give up the Bible. I have never heard a Christian geologist intimate that his faith in the sacred record was shaken at all by any thing he had met with in geology. No-though all the severity and intolerance that has been heaped upon Christian geologists in Europe, should be exhibited on this side the Atlantic, we are determined to cling to the Bible. Too many of our most precious hopes rest upon it-too rich consolation have we derived from it; and we trust we may say out vanity, too deep is our experimental knowledge of its truth, to allow our confidence in it for one moment to be shaken by any imaginary discrepancy between its statements and those of science. We know that it is the wisdom of God and the pow er of God unto salvation; and therefore we are not ashamed of it. We love science also: but the most interesting aspect in which we regard it, is as the friend and handmaid of revelation. And we cannot but view with pain any efforts, from whatever quarter they may come, to put asunder what God has united. We see no discrepancy between them; and our souls are often refreshed by the bright light which they reflect upon each other.

with

We rest calmly, therefore, on this fundamental principle, that science and revelation are both true; and we feel confident that ere long the horizon, where these two subjects meet, will be so cleared up to the vision of our Christian brethren, that they will see only one bright and unbroken circle of transparent truth.

ARTICLE IX.

CRITICAL NOTICES.

I. TRANSLATIONS FROM FOREIGN LANGUAGES.

[WE propose to translate hereafter, as opportunities may offer, brief notices of such foreign works as may interest American readers. We have access to a number of the more important publications issued on the continent of Europe. We now present some notices of three or four biblical and classical works from the Halle Allgemeine Literatur Zeitung for 1835. We have space only for a few of the more important paragraphs. The Gazette, as its name imports, is literary in its character, and is not under evangelical influence. EDITOR.]

1.—Commentar zu dem Briefe des Apostels Paulus an die Römer. Von Dr. Eduard Koellner, Licentiaten u. Privatdocenten der Theologie in Göttingen. Gött. 1834, pp. 428.

"This commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is worthy to be placed by the side of the extensive one which another well deserving teacher at the university of Göttingen, Reiche, just before put forth on the same Epistle. Both authors have, unquestionably, in their works, furnished valuable contributions for the better understanding of this difficult Epistle. Reiche, however, wishing to give to the reader, in his historical view a complete account of what had hitherto appeared on the Epistle, has allowed ample space to the enumeration and critical estimate of what was proposed by the early commentators, while Koellner, regarding it as a main point to corroborate his own view, has thought best to confine himself to a statement and critical examination of those interpretations which seemed to him most

effectually to bear on his design. In zeal for pure biblical Christianity, in clearness of mind, in sound and consequently independent theological judgment, in solid philological and theological attainment, and in mental acumen, Koellner, as well as Reiche, shows himself to be much superior to many other youthful scholars, and excites fair hopes as it respects the future. We must not, however, conceal the fact that Koellner, has not confined himself in theory, (Introd. p. 19) nor altogether in practice, to the point of view taken by a grammatico-historical interpreter, but has thought it to be his duty, as occasion presented, critically to investigate the argument for the particular doctrinal position which he had himself taken." The reviewer then proceeds to make some remarks on the course adopted by Koellner in respect to the questions of Rationalism and Supranaturalism, the mediateness or immediateness of revelation, and the expediency of refraining on the part of the interpreter of the Bible from doctrinal discussions. He mentions that Koellner in his opinion, has successfully refuted some of the opinions of Tholuck and Rückert. He also gives a number of his criticisms on the text of the Epistle. He closes by expressing the desire of again meeting the author on the field of exegesis.

2.-Encyklopaedie und Methodologie der theologischen Wissenschaften. Von Dr. J. T. L. Danz. Weimar 1832, pp. 538. Encyklopaedie und Methodologie der theologischen WissenschafVon Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Professor der Theologie in Basel. Leipzig 1833, pp. 423.

ten.

"Men have a strong inclination, by means of encyclopaedias and methodical summaries, to collect the known results of philosophical investigations, to arrange them, and reduce them to their appropriate philosophical form, and thus to obtain a commanding observation of the ground already gone over, and of what remains to be explored, so that a comprehensive view of the position already reached in philosophy may be obtained, and general rules established acquisition of knowledge in the easiest manner. Consequently we may be allowed to come to the conclusion that theology may soon be brought to a methodical state. During the last three years, we have had three new specimens of theological encyclopaedia and methodology from Protestant writers, namely, those of Rosenkranz, Danz, and Hagen

bach, and one from a catholic writer-the Encyclopaedia of Theology by Klee, Mentz 1832. From this fact, we may gather that theology will soon reach the certain result or point of rest in its development, where it will be necessary to survey it, and determine the position on which it stands, that it may be clearly known in what manner it may be further extended. The meaning of various things which have fallen into dispute may be cleared up, the different relations of parties towards each other may be accurately stated, and the diverse directions in which the theology of our times has divided asunder, may be clearly discriminated into their peculiarities, and thus each division may strive to build up philosophy after its own mind and manner.' 99 "The three protestant encyclopaedias have each a peculiar interest, inasmuch as in the three there are essentially represented the different aims of our Protestant theology; in that of Danz the experimental, or practicorational, in Rosenkranz the purely speculative, and in Hagenbach the historico-philosophical-an intermediate course, in pursuance of his peculiar object. More definitely stated, Danz is almost exclusively historical, without any other determinate doctrinal character, than to adapt his work to the general comprehension; Rosenkranz belongs to Hegel's school, and Hagenbach to that of Schleiermacher. That all the objects and opinions in the theology of our times are not delineated in these volumes is of itself evident."

In Exegetical Theology, Hagenbach proceeds from his definitions to speak of the substratum of exegesis, the holy Scriptures; he takes up the canon, and the introductions to the Old and New Testaments, and then goes to the exegetical helps. 1. Philological acquaintance with the language, or sacred philology. 2. Historical acquaintance with the origin and fortunes of the canon, (einleitungs wissenschaft). 3. Critical examination of the integrity and authenticity of the sacred writings, (kritik). 4. Laws of interpretation, (hermeneutik). 5. Historico-antiquarian knowledge, or biblical antiquities. In Historical Theology, he considers the heads of Bible history, especially the life of Jesus, history of doctrines, and the history of the church. As branches, he takes up the history of doctrines, symbols, history of the Fathers, archaeology, literary history, history of morals, history of missions, and statistics. Three things he supposes to be necessary for the handling of church history-impartial exhibition of matters of fact-critical examiVOL. VII. No. 22.

62

nation of the appropriate argument in relation to natural and miraculous power, (the lower and higher causality)—and a lively interest in Christianity. Systematic Theology, our author defines as a philosophical and connected exhibition of the Christian doctrines. He connects doctrines, as it was altogether proper, closely with the vindication or defence of Christianity. In the development of his main positions in respect to morals, he follows De Wette for the most part. There is, as he concludes, a very material difference between philosophical and Christian morals, for the latter are peculiarly characterized. To Practical Theology, belong catechetical instruction, liturgies, homiletics, pastoral theology, practical religious works, and church government.

Danz divides his Encyclopaedia into two parts. I. Heuristic or Exegetical Theology. Christianity and its doctrines are matters of fact. These must be known by means of their sources, and this will be Heuristic (haurio) theology. He regards the Old Testament in the first place in the relation of a help for the interpretation of the New, and secondarily, as the sources of Christianity itself. He considers, 1. The canon or the Scriptures in a collective sense. 2. The authenticity of particular books. 3. The trustworthiness or credibility of the Scriptures, particularly in the relation of matters of fact. 4. Their inspiration. 5. Their integrity. In order to make use of these writings as sources of the knowledge of the Christian religion, it is necessary to have a knowledge of the language in which they were written-of the character of the writers and the occasions on which they wrote-the critical helps in respect to the text-and the rules of interpretation. II. Technical Theology, (from tɛyvav, finished according to the rules of art or scientifically). This he divides first into syntactic or systematic theology with various subdivisions; Metatactic or historical theology, having for its object to exhibit the changes in the Christian doctrines; and Christian ethics, or theological morals.

3. Cornelii Taciti Opera. Recognovit brevique annotatione instruxit Franciscus Ritter Westphalus, Tomus prior. Annales, 1834, pp. 478, 8vo.

About four quarto pages are devoted to a notice of this edition of Tacitus by Dr. A. Capellmann. He says that we have