We repeat what we said in the beginning of this notice. The productions of Mr. Dana are admirably fitted, both in style and thought, to do good to those who are learning to think and to write. Nothing can be more free from pretence and affectation. The critical remarks, for example those upon the poems of Thomson, are eminently just and considerate. The article suggested by Pollok's Course of Time, we have always regarded as a model of candid, yet profound and discriminating criticism. Such reviews teach how necessary it is to meditate long and feel deeply, before one sits in judgment on a work of genius or of original investigation. We feel thankful that we have in the English language such specimens of reviewing as that of Mr. Dana on Hazlitt's English Poets, and that of Coleridge on Wordsworth's Excursion. In mentioning the works which do honor to American literature, and which are likely to live while the language is spoken, we do not know why the list should begin and end with a few historical writers like Mr. Prescott and Mr. Irving. The poetry of Mr. Dana and Mr. Bryant constitute a solid addition to the treasures of our noble language. They repay in some degree the great debt which we owe to England. They will be read ages hence with delight and profit.

ART. IV. DR. DAVIDSON ON THE NEW
TESTAMENT.

An Introduction to the New Testament; containing an examination of the most important questions relating to the authority, interpretation, and integrity of the Canonical books, with reference to the latest inquiries. By SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D. Volume I. The Four Gospels. Vol. II. The Acts of the Apostles to the second epistle of the Thessalonians. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons.

THE author of these volumes, the Professor of Biblical Literature and Ecclesiastical History in the Lancashire Independent College, is favorably known, not only in Great Britain but on the continent, by his extensive erudition in the department of Biblical Criticism, and by several valuable contributions to sacred learning. As the translator of Gieseler's Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, and the author of "Lectures on Biblical Criticism" and more recently of the "Congregational Lecture" on "the Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament," he has gained a reputation in this country also among those whose studies lie in the same channels. The work announced above is his

latest contribution to Biblical Literature, and will be the most permanent monument of his scholarship and of his diligent and patient research. The first volume procured for him the compliment of a doctorate in divinity from the University of Halle, a compliment which the author gracefully acknowledges by dedicating the second volume to the Theological Faculty of that University.

The design of Dr. Davidson in the preparation of these volumes was to forestall among English scholars and divines, the discussion of that class of critical objections to the New Testament which has marked the rationalistic movement of Germany; to do by way of anticipation for the English student, what Neander, Tholuck, Hengstenberg and others of the German evangelical school of interpretation have done in the way of controversy, and as in a life-struggle, for the defense of the genuineness and authenticity of the canonical books. This object and the reasons for it are thus set forth by the author in his preface to the first volume. "There are many well meaning men who entirely discourage the reading of such books as contain new researches into the region of theological science, especially those written in the German language. They denounce them as dangerous. They sound the alarm of heresy. They raise the cry of an infallible anathematizing ignorance. But in the meantime curiosity is excited. Men's sympathies are drawn in the direction of the accused. The depreciated books are read in spite of denouncements, or rather all the more eagerly because of them; and their essence is reproduced in English works. On this account, it seems to be the wiser course to prepare for all the objections that may be urged against the New Testament. It is better even to anticipate the diffusion of certain subtile cavils in the field of Christianity than to decry them at a distance, or to be overwhelmed by their novelty when they are fairly imported from other lands.

"It is the writer's belief that the books of the New Testament are destined ere long to pass through a severe ordeal. The translations of various continental works which have recently appeared in England, and the tendency of certain speculations in philosophy, indicate a refined skepticism or a pantheistic spirit which confounds the objective and the subjective, or unduly subordinates the former to the latter. Many are disposed to exalt their intuitions too highly, to the detriment of the historical, as Kant did in his Pure Reason.

"These observations will serve to show why the author has gone with considerable fullness into objections that have been urged in modern times against the New Testament books, and especially against the Gospels. He thinks it highly probable that such objections will appear in one shape or other in this

country. Hence he has partially anticipated their currency. is true that they are known to a few English scholars even now; but they are destined to be more widely inculcated. Perhaps most of those who are at present acquainted with them are able to set a right value on them without having their minds injured; but the circumstances of the case must change in proportion as the skeptical considerations in question are revealed to a wider circle, unless pains be taken to send a sufficient antidote along with them."

In accordance with this plan, Dr. Davidson has entered into the discussion of preliminary and critical questions relative to the books of the New Testament, with more thoroughness and minuteness of detail than any English writer who has preceded him in this department. Indeed one who would follow the intricacies of rationalistic criticism upon this subject can take nothing for granted, unless perhaps it be his own conscious existence. He is in the position of the Protestant minister who was waited upon by a conceited youth-a recent proselyte to Rome with the request that he would show from the New Testament what was the true Catholic church founded by Christ; but when he had proved that that church was not the church of Rome, it was demanded that he should prove that the will of Christ is expressed in the New Testament; and when this was accomplished, evidence was demanded that Christ spoke in the name and by the authority of God; and thus the questioner retreated step by step until in order to answer the original inquiry as to the teaching of the New Testament on a specific point, it was necessary to prove the existence of God. Dr. Davidson has anticipated this retrogression by beginning at the lowest foundation, and meeting every objection and inquiry which can by any possibility be raised. It is somewhat characteristic of his mind to refine upon a subject to an extent which is tedious to minds not similarly constituted or not equally interested in the topic under discussion. His work on ecclesiastical polity is an example of this, but in the volumes before us the exceedingly critical habit of his mind appears on every page. All that pertains to an Introduction in the German use of the term is embodied in this work. There is much here that the ordinary Biblical student will never find occasion to use; and there is everything here which the most critical student of the New Testament could desire in an armory for the defense of the Gospel. Viewed as a whole, the work is an honor to English scholarship and an invaluable help to Biblical criticism.

The first volume opens with a dissertation on the Gospel of Matthew. After a brief notice of the writer, and of the persons -Jewish converts-for whom in the first instance it was designed, the author enters into a very elaborate and learned investigation of the language in which this Gospel was written, and the result

to which he comes, contrary to the conclusion of Hug and others, is that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, or rather in the Aramæan or Syro-Chaldaic language, at that time the vernacular tongue of the Jews in Palestine. This is in accordance with the most ancient historical testimony and with internal marks in the Gospel itself. A brief enumeration of the characteristic peculiarities of Matthew's Gospel succeeds this disquisition. Among these some of the more important are, the mode of narrationin which the order of time is sometimes sacrificed to the highest doctrinal impression-and the Judaic conception and presentation of the character and mission of Christ. While Matthew exhibits Jesus as the son of David, the great Teacher and Prophet, "the substance of type and prophecy in the ancient dispensation," he does not rise to those more spiritual views of Christ which abound in the Gospel of John. The phrase Βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν is a peculiarity of this Gospel, for which other New Testament writers use Βασιλεία θεοῦ. The reader who is curious in such investigations will be greatly assisted by Winer's Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms.

The next point which Dr. Davidson considers, is the authenticity or Apostolic origin of the Gospel of Matthew, and this is followed by a discussion of its integrity and of the time and place of composition. Under the two former heads the student will find some valuable suggestions for the exposition of difficult passages in the Gospel.

The same general course of inquiry is pursued with reference to the other Gospels; but only the results to which the author comes, can be given here. Mark's Gospel was intended for Gentile converts. Hence it does not partake of the doctrinal character of Matthew's, but is purely historical. Its style is concise and graphic, pictorial rather than didactic, and with little consecutive method. Luke wrote his Gospel primarily for the instruction of Theophilus, who was probably a Gentile believer, but also with the higher design of providing for the church a complete and an authoritative history of the life and doctrines of Christ. In the narration of events, he is more circumstantial and exact than either Matthew or Mark, though his records of the discourses and parables of our Lord are much briefer than Matthew's. The Greek of Luke is more pure and classical than that of either of his predecessors. In discussing the authenticity of Luke's Gospel, Dr. Davidson collates with good judgment the historical facts and allusions of the evangelist with Josephus and other contemporary writers. The result is satisfactory for the sacred historian. But we must protest against the implied concession of the infallibility of Josephus as an historian, whenever there seems to be a discrepancy between him and the evangelist. By the canons of historical criticism Luke is entitled to

stand upon the same ground with Josephus as a simple historian; and the infidel is as truly bound to harmonize Josephus with Luke as is the Christian to reconcile Luke with Josephus.

The view which Dr. Davidson takes of John's Gospel is, that it was written not for a distinct polemical purpose, nor merely to supplement the three Gospels already extant, but with the general design of extending and establishing the faith as it is in Jesus. His object was didactic; but at the same time the composition of his Gospel was effected by his own subjective views and experience, while these in turn were influenced by the state of religion and of philosophy in Asia Minor. Dr. Davidson, however, does not allow the same prominence to the reflective idiosyncrasy of John which is given to it by Neander in his History of the Planting and Training of the Churches. In his opinion, “a large proportion of what is termed John's speculation and mysticism, should be placed to the account of theologians who view his writings through the false medium of their own capricious philosophy." There is much truth in this remark ; yet we can not regard the fine distinction which Neander makes between Paul and John as altogether fanciful. Indeed Dr. Davidson, in his remarks on the prologue to this Gospel, partly admits the speculative and spiritual tendency of the Apostle John, though he would strip it entirely of an artificial character.

"The prologue of the Gospel obviously presents an allusion to the gnosis of John's day. The commencement of it appears to have a class of men in view who, by peculiar speculations, threatened to corrupt pure Christianity. The leading idea of it is therefore antignostic. The ever-existing Logos, the only-begotten of the Father, became incarnate, and sojourned truly among men. In His person, the human and divine are inseparably united. To Him the revelations of Deity in the world must be referred as their source. He has always been the Divine Light, to which the darkness of the world is opposed, and by which it is overcome. If we regard the prologue as giving the key-note to the entire Gospel, it may be affirmed that the tendency of the work was to counteract indirectly the false gnosis then current. But perhaps this is too strong an assertion to apply to the introduction, since a reference to such speculations is only apparent in it. An antignostic spirit pervades the Gospel, not because John's design was to furnish a direct antidote to it, but because his object was so general as naturally to include it. He purposed to write a Gospel consisting of history and doctrine, which should promote and strengthen faith in Christ as the Son of God, showing the animating principles and consolations of that faith in their holy power of love. In doing so, he did not entirely overlook the speculations which mistook the nature of true faith, and were therefore injurious to Christianity; but he did not intend to refute them specially. The character of his Gospel, we repeat, is not polemic. It is only apologetic. All the polemics of it appear in the mild form of narrative and statement—a narrative of great facts, a statement of sublime utterances, that disprove all religious error; though their antithesis to the current error of that day is more discernible. We believe that he had certain mental tendencies in his view in the prologue, and probably in other parts of the Gospel; but these did not constitute the chief motive for writing it. They were subordinate to a more comprehensive design, and largely absorbed in it."-p. 330.