Translation of Hermann Venema's Inedited Institutes of Theology. By the Rev. A. W. BROWN. Edinburgh: Clark. London: Hamilton. 1850.

"HERMANN VENEMA was a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, and succeeded the younger Vitringa as Professor of Theology in the University of Franequer in Friesland. His Institutes of Theology,' the first volume of which, in English, is now submitted to the reader, were never published in the original language. The work only exists in manuscript, and came into the possession of the translator some few years ago -(Pref.) Venema was a very learned and accurate man, and though belonging to the Calvinistic school of divinity did not go the length of the Synod of Dort, or of adopting the narrow and exclusive system of theology which generally has become associated with Calvinism in modern times. He was perfect master of Hebrew, and wrote a commentary on the Psalms, of which Adam Clarke, no incompetent judge, was accustomed to say that he regarded it as David did the sword of Goliah, that there is none like it. He also wrote commentaries on Daniel and other books of Scripture.

Of the work now before us for the first time we think very highly, and acknowledge great obligations to Mr. Brown for having made it public. Venema thoroughly understands his subject and lays it out in a very clear and masterly manner, although it is also treated concisely, and contains a great mass of subject for thought condensed in a very small compass. We are, therefore, fully persuaded that no person can fairly study these institutes without being the better for it: since, even in the points where he may not finally agree with Venema, as it is sometimes the case with us, he will, notwithstanding, find that he understands the subject better than he did before in consequence of its being clearly laid out; and, in handling the abstruse doctrines of the divine foreknowledge and the fall of man, he shows a commendable humility.

The inspiration of Scripture and the necessity of submitting our reason to its declarations are points which are very ably discussed; and the doctrine of the Trinity is brought out from the Hebrew names of God, which are more numerous than could be retained in the English version, and which, from their peculiarities of concord and from being construed with verbs and adjectives, sometimes singular and sometimes dual or plural, bring out the doctrine of the Trinity in a very striking and convincing manner. It was to one of these passages that old Bishop Bailey alluded in saying, "This text, well urged, had grinded Arius to powder." We shall be glad to see the

remainder of the institutes when we may notice the whole work more at length, and when we hope to have a full table of contents, if not an index, for both volumes: for, without such assistances, books of this description lose much of their value; and it will be necessary to be careful in correcting the press, as we have observed several errata in the English and more in the Hebrew typography.

A Selection from the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, with Notes and an Introductory Discourse. By W. FITZGERALD, M.A., Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Dublin. Hodges and Smith. 1850.

We notice this work on account of its introduction, which is directed to the two principal points, first, of meeting the objection which is often raised by the more scrupulously religious against making a study of the classics an ingredient of Christian education secondly, a defence of Aristotle from the unfair depreciation of his writings, which began with Bacon and has gone on increasing ever since, chiefly by the utilitarian school of philosophy and its best exponent, Paley.

To the first objection Mr. Fitzgerald replies, "that it is only by a study of the Greek classics that we can hope to acquire such a mistery of the language as to understand critically the Greek of the New Testament. For, though the writers of the Gospels and Epistles differ in their idiom from each other and from the classic writers, yet these last form the common standard, by a comparison with which the true sense intended to be conveyed is to be sought for. If there were nothing else, the Bible itself has made such studies necessary. God, whether we like it or not, has been pleased to make his great revelation to mankind in the Greek language; and competent skill in the criticism of that language can only be acquired by the study of the authors in whom alone it now exists. The ancient Greek literature may be base and defiling. Too much of it is, and too much of that most dangerous portion of it is sometimes needlessly put in the way of youth. But the fact, nevertheless, is undeniable that in that literature is contained the language which all who would understand the New Testament thoroughly must strive to master....... God has established an intimate connection on every side between the Scriptures of truth and every department of human science and literature. The Scripture is no one summary of doctrines, regularly digested, in which a man could not mistake his way. It is a most venerable but most multifarious collection of the records of the divine economy; a collection of an infinite variety of cosmogony, theology, pro

phecy, psalmody, morality, apologue, allegory, legislation, ethics, carried through different books, by different authors, at different ages, for different ends and purposes."

This paves the way to the second object Mr. Fitzgerald has in view-that of rescuing Aristotle from the reproach and contempt with which he has been unjustly loaded; and showing that, not only as a classic but as a philosophic writer, he ought to be held in esteem, both as a witness to the opinions of antiquity on morals and as a teacher qualified to direct and form the opinions of the present generations.

The prejudice against what is vaguely called "Aristotle's Philosophy" is ascribed to two main causes-the one remarked on by Bishop Butler as a weakness of human nature, that when, upon comparison of two things, one is found to be of greater importance than another, we are tempted to consider that other as of no importance at all; the other cause being the identitication of Aristotle with the errors of his interpreter. "It was the schoolmen who ruled the world, under the name of Aristotle, when what was called his philosophy was first attacked; and, as that name had long served to consecrate their absurdities, so their absurdities, when detected, served to disgrace his name. ......Talk in some circles of the ethics of Aristotle, and you will be suspected of a design to introduce into the Church the barren unevangelical theology of the middle ages."

In vindicating Aristotle, Mr. Fitzgerald shows that the reality of a moral faculty in man is assumed throughout as the basis of his ethical system; and contrasts this with the philosophy of Paley and the utitilarians, who resolve everything into the selfish motive of seeking after the greatest amount of happiness; and he quotes an eloquent passage from Hall of Bristol in which a similar contrast is drawn. Not that Aristotle denies the tendency of virtue to produce happiness, but he denies that any such tendency constitutes the actions virtuous; or, that a regard for happiness is the motive which prompts the virtuous man to act virtuously. The happiness of the virtuous man is that of a being in whom the moral sense is the ruling principle-whose highest enjoyment is found in the very practice of obedience to that ruling principle, and to whom a violation of its dictates would cause more real pain than the crossing of any inferior appetite.

All the analogies between such a philosophy and the Gospel are eloquently pointed out. We have only to substitute obedience to the divine command for obedience to the moral principle and the analogy is complete; and when it is thus seen that the philosophy of Gallileau fishermen coincides with the

last and highest attainments of the most learned, most enlightened of the heathen, it becomes a strong indirect evidence that Christianity is divine; though it was not brought to us in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but the Holy Ghost teacheth.

Church Matters in 1850. No. 2. A Call to Speak Out. By the Rev. JOHN KEBLE. London: J. H. Parker, 1850.

SUBMIT we must to hear it, but day after day the cry rings continually in our ears-Gorham v. Exeter!-and the strife of words that rages around us on behalf of these two combatants is deafening and wearying; and every day brings some new champion into the field to do battle in the cause of orthodoxy, or to throw down his gauntlet in defiance of it. Nor does time soften down the zeal or the rancour of the disputants; nor does much writing do aught else than convince each party that the other holds opinions wholly opposed to the truth.

That Mr. Keble should enter into the controversy might reasonably be supposed-equally so, that he should object to the judgment of a State Court upon Church doctrines; and, conceiving that he had a call to speak out, he has accordingly spoken to declare his conviction that the said State Court was a profane although unconscious usurpation of sacred functions, and the doctrine that court sanctioned as not only false but heretical.

Two questions are, in consequence, submitted to us for examination and decision: the first, is it possible for us to acquiesce any longer in the present relations of the Church to the State without very grievous sin? The second, how far are the faithful clergy and laity called upon to break or to suspend communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is so far implicated in heresy as to set his seal both to the State Court's authority and to the venial nature of the false doctrine they protected? This last question the writer first examines and thus dismisses-that we need not fear being as yet formally committed to the heresy which causes our alarm, by continuing in communion with the prelates who favour it; but that there is very great danger of our being morally committed to it. And his reasonings upon first question lead him to this conclusion—that a religious body is entitled to exercise this liberty, that, if its civil and social position interfere with its freedom to declare its own doctrines, it should forego its civil priveleges for the sake of its religious principles: in other words, that under present circumstances, and with our present prospects, a separation of the Church from the State is desirable, if not essential to the Church, if

VOL. XXVIII.-K K

the

she would not become formally heretical and consequently cease from being a Church altogether.

That there is a zealous, and powerful, and united party that hold to these opinions, there is no question: who deprecate, and not altogether without reason, the continual intermeddling of the Government of the day in Church matters, their illconsidered attempts at Church legislation, their blunders, their failures, their interference with the liturgy, their almost yearly new forms of prayer, of supplication, or thanksgiving.

The Government of the day is, in the person of the Prime Minister, the representative of the popular will, or he may be a Jew, or one sent into the House of Commons by the influence of the Jews. Such a man is, in fact, for the time being, "the State;" and it is argued that with such a man the Church can have no union of thought-no communion of hopes or of interests; and that it would be better for the Church altogether that from such a man, and from such a set of men as he would collect around him, the Church should be wholly dissevered; that from such "a State" the Church should be absolutely and legally separated, and should thus be left free to pursue her own course, to declare her own doctrines, to make her own canons, to nominate her own pastors, and to determine who are to be accounted as her members or who cast out from her fold. What description of men the popular will will send into the Commons' house, and consequently upon the Treasury benches, within the next twenty years, we pretend not to foretel; but while men like the present hold office-men who know what a powerful support the Church is to the Crown and what invaluable auxiliaries to the Government are the clergy-no encouragement whatever will be given to the separation of the State from the Church, since it is by many considered that both would suffer; that both would lose perhaps more than half their strength; or altogether, it may be, their polity or their existence.

And there are not a few who think and say that Churchmen do ill to the cause they wish to serve by using the arguments they do use to prove the separation advisable; and that Statesmen do great injury to the State in provoking Churchmen to desire so strongly to be separated from the State's influence and interference altogether.

United in will and determination to do the utmost for the religious instruction of the people over whom they preside, they would be invincible for good: separated from each other, through mutual distrust and ill-will, they would probably each fall, under the combined attack upon each of infidelity and democracy.