jects illustrated are as various as they are interesting, and include portraits of the reigning monarch, and his most distinguished contemporaries; the events connected with the ecclesiastical policy of the country; the development of our constitution ; military and naval actions ; our progress in art, science, and literature; the erection of our principal public buildings; foundation of our universities, and the origin of the learned societies; progress of inventions and of the refinements of life; while the manners, customs, and costume of the people are carefully attended to.”

Miss Cartwright's letter-press matter constitutes a connecting link between the periods illustrated, and is in a succinct and compact form. Mr. Varty's description of one of these chronological prints is fully borne out by the print itself; the subject being the reign of King John:

“ The centre compartment of the plate depicts the King surrounded by the Barons, reluctantly affixing his signature to the Great Charter of British Liberty-surrounded with a medallion portrait of the monarch. Beneath are representations, illustrative of such inventions and improvements as were first introduced in that reign. On either side of the central group is figured in correct costume, and within arches characterizing the architecture of the age, Prince Arthur of Brittany and Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury; while the connecting compartments complete the Chronological View, by depicting John receiving the Homage of the Irish Chieftains-his Submission to the Holy See--the confederated Barons demanding the Charter-and the loss of John's army and baggage at Fossdike, thus exhibiting at a single glance years of action, and results educed from the short-sighted policy of man, and the over-ruling providence of God, and forming one link in that chain of history, an acquaintance with which, whilst it is one of the most interesting, is also one of the most valuable acquisitions with which the mind of man can be furnished.”

It will convey some idea of the pains-taking, compass, and particularity of these plates, when it is stated that fac-similes of the autographs of the sovereigns and the most distinguished contemporary characters are attached to each.

These Chronological Pictures may be warmly recommended as presenting a great national history, without political perversion or straining of any kind. They are altogether remote from dryness also; nor in the hands of a competent commentator will the things for which they stand as texts and finger-posts be soon exhausted. Talk, and that pertinent and arresting, will be found in and about the prints, such as no other signs or system of arrangement could supply. Any one wishing to know the military tactics,—the state of religion, of government, of national industry,- of literature and art, -of manners and customs, and of the social condition of the people

during the reigns of our kings may find far more light thrown upon these points in the educational work before us, than in many historical volumes of higher pretensions..


ART. XVII.-Dominici Diodati 1. C. Neapolitani de Christo Græce Lo

quente Exercitatio. Edited with a Preface, by ORLANDO T. Dobbin, LL.B., It is quite evident that the editing of this learned essay was a labour of love on the part of Mr. Dobbin, and that he is habituated to curious studies, and to the ransacking of rare works in theological literature. Dominici Diodati, we are told in the editor's preface, was a civilian born at Naples in 1736, of a family distinguished in literature. He received his education in the University of his native city. His first publication was the Exercitation before us, in 1767, and it appears to have produced an extraordinary excitement in its day throughout the learned world, procuring for the author great celebrity and enrolment in several literary associations. Afterwards, we are told, he directed his researches chiefly to the antiquities of Italy and Sicily. He died in 1801, in the city of his birth, "where a memoir of her distinguished son appeared in the year 1815."

It would be going quite beyond our depth were we to attempt any criticism of the argument of the essay; or to measure its precise importance and worth. Perhaps the editor himself does not look upon it as of vast doctrinal importance. Indeed, his prefatory account and remarks seem to be those of a person conscious that he is dealing with extreme niceties, and points not capable of demonstration. We quote part of what is there said, and dismiss the curious book, two hundred and fifty copies, we learn, being the whole of the impression.

“The subject of the Essay “De Christo Græce Loquente " is incorrectly described in the Biographie Universelle, vol. lxii.

“Il soutient que

Jesus Christ et ses disciples faisaient usage de cette langue, [le Grec] et parconsequent que les textes originaux du N. T. sonten Grec et non pas en Hebreu." On this latter topic our Essayist maintains a judicious silence, or makes but a passing mention of it. It lay out of his way, and belongs to a controversy quite distinct from that in which he took part. Any connexion which may be observed between them is casual not necessary, incidental not real. Unconcerned to trace that connexion in its causes or consequences, the author adheres with argumentative closeness to the track marked out by himself, and terminates his career with the goal at which he aimed from the outset, namely, that Christ and his apostles spoke Greek as their native tongue.

“The application, nevertheless, of this discovery, if the fact be considered as established, to the original language of the New Testament, is direct and obvious. We are conducted to an easy and natural solution of the question why were the archetypal writings of the New Covenant given in Greek rather than any other tongue ? But it will be observed that the present

inquiry does not assert this--it only assumes it; it does not demonstrate the affiirmative of this query-it explains it; it does not prove, it does not seek to prove, that the later Revelation was made to the world in Greek-it only presents a phenomenon in the history of its authors which would naturally account for its being in that language. Hence originated our remark just made in commendation of the simplicity of Diodati's argument, and our assertion, that the connexion between the controversy respecting the vernacular tongue of Christ, and that relating to the archetypal writings of the New Testament, is historical not logical, collateral rather than direct.

"That the Scriptures of the Christian Canon were composed in the language of Greece is a fact we conceive placed beyond the reach of successful dispute ; but the demonstration of the hypothesis, that Jesus Christ spoke that language, may be perfect or not; its instability cannot shake the basis upon which the other verity rests. The one is a question of literary history which the consenting voice of antiquity has already decided, therefore not again to be opened by the affirmation or negation of Diodati's scheme; the other a question never yet submitted to a thorough dissection, although glanced at by several writers, and in which the most enlightened maintainers of a Greek original of the New Testament may adopt different sides without prejudice to their consistency, or affecting their opinion with regard to the previous question. The worth of our author's argument, if valid, is not that it validates the other, but that it affords a simple and ready exposition of the reason why the New Testament has been composed in Greek rather than in other tongues; to wit, that it was the native language of the various saered penmen.

"No other ground, we venture to suggest, is sufficiently stable and compre. hensive to sustain this conclusion. reasons commonly alleged for the selection of Greek, such as, that it was the prevailing language of the time, ---that some one language must be chosen, and therefore this with greater propriety than another, for the reason just given, are far from meeting the exigencies of the case. No satisfactory plea can be urged why there should not be more languages than one employed in the communication of the New than of the Old Testament Revelation. There might be Latin and Greek in the one, with as much fitness as Hebrew and Chaldee in the other. That the wide diffusion of the Greek language at the commencement of our era should justify its selection as the most suitable vehicle for the conveyance of Revelation at that period, is met by referring to the Hebrew of the earlier Revelation, to the adoption of which as the medium of communication with the world for two thousand years, the same reason will not apply. But to say that God spake by prophets and apostles in the language they severally spoke, is reasonable, reverent, natural, and pertinent under every dispensation, while it leaves the question of a priori proprieties in the shade, their only proper place in discussions relating to the super-natural. All difficulties attending the language in which divine communications have been made to mankind vanish, when we conceive of God ordaining each inspired messenger to deliver his solemn burden to the world in the accents of his native tongue, irrespective, or but partially respective, of the numbers more or less who speak it, and leaving those who are thus addressed to their own resources and ingenuity, to their philanthropy and religious fear, to multiply and diffuse the conimunication by translations. In most treatises on this

topic the Editor conceives that the subjective has been too generally sacrificed to the objective inspiration. The same necessity which would dictate the choice of ony one tongue, that it might be intelligible to the majority of men, would dictate the employment of many, that Revelation might thus be conveyed directly to all; an object which, were it the immediate scope of the Divine will, would present no difficulty to Omnipotence. Let the fact, however, of the later Scriptures having been written in Greek be considered as explained by the circumstance, that the writers spoke Greek as their vulgar tongue, and we are neither lost in the labyrinth of unprofitable conjecture, nor doomed to the disappointment of a miserable and defective causation,

"The broad principle just enunciated in regard to the vehicle of divine communications, the Editor has never seen so stated before; nevertheless he humbly conceives its simplicity is only equalled by its truth. To his apprehension it covers the whole ground occupied by this much mooted question-does away with whole volumes of logomachy and angry discussion, and admitted to be true, is more strongly confirmatory of Diodati's view than all the arguments contained in his book.

“When I assume, as I have done in a preceding page, that the writings of the New Testament were primarily composed in Greek, I do so in full cognizance of the fact, that various contrary hypotheses have been maintained. These have no weight with me. If the records of history and reasonings of logic have any value, the books of the New Canon from Matthew to the Apocalypse (although some familiar traditions with relation to one or two of them stand in the way) were certainly Greek in the apostolic autographs. The translator of Pfannkuche indeed, in Clark's interesting Biblical Cabinet (vol ii.47) has declared the hypothesis of their private translations, to be in his opinion "susceptible of demonstration." He has probably adopted the theory held more or less modified by Bolten, Bertholdt, and others, of an Aramaic original. Without feeling the slightest particle of theological jealousy as to the decision of this question, for my faith in the documents would be just what it is whether they be proved translations or originals, as a fact in history, I dare affirm it were scarcely less hardihood to maintain our English version to be the archetype, than to defend the position Mr. Repp has assumed."

Art. XVIII. - The Life and Times of John Reuchlin. By F. BARHAM, Esq.

Reuchlin, although a profound scholar and a promoter of the Reforma. tion which Luther and Melancthon were destined to complete, earning for him the title of the Father of the German Revolution, is a stranger to the great mass of English readers; and even by most of those amongst us who are counted learned in ecclesiastical annals, we believe his influence and history are but imperfectly understood. The present neat volume, however, will dispel most of this ignorance and indifference with regard to one of the most eminent men of his age. Indeed without an acquaintance with Reuchlin's character and life, many obscure and intricate passages of his

times will remain to arrest the progress of the historical student. To those persons, therefore, who speak the English language, Mr. Barham has not only contributed excellent service, but the contribution has been conducted with real ability and enlightened zeal.

Art.XIX.-The Churchman's Companion ; a Help to Scripture Knowledge

for the Family Circle and Retirement of the Closet, Really an attractive volume, presenting much variety of matter, and that of the most important kind. A portion of its contents consists of selections from the most esteemed writers on the Scriptures and Christianity; there is a collection of prayers for the more remarkable seasons and occasions, observations on the Sacraments, &c. But the book presents also critical and Bibliographic al matter; and much excellent counsel, as well as suggestion to the readers of the sacred writings. Besides an account of the books of the Old and New Testament, there is a concise history of their principal editions in different languages. What is new in the volume is well done. There is nothing like sectarianism in “The Churchman's Companion ; ” but most valuable information, real elevation of tone, and unaffected earnestness of sentiment.


Art. XX.-- The History of Junius and his Works; and a Review of the

Controversy respecting the Identity of Junius, with an Appendix, con

taining Portraits and Sketches by Junius.—By John JACQUES. Dr. Parr, among the multitude of conjecturers about the identity of Junius, seems to have had, or fancied he had, very strong grounds for ascribing the authorship of the letters of Junius to Charles Lloyd, private secretary to George Grenville and his deputy teller of the Exchequer. The Doctor mentioned to General Cockburne, in 1820, the names of several eminent men, who coincided with him upon the subject; and also stated his and their conviction that the King was aware that Lloyd was Junius. In a letter to the General in the course of the same year the Doctor ob

serves :

"In regard to Junius, I broke the seal of secrecy two months ago, and having no restraints of delicacy about it, I communicated the opinion unreservedly to Mr. Denman. The impression produced by a well written pamphlet, and an elaborate critique on it in the Edinburgh Review, still direct the national faith towards Sir Philip Francis. He was too proud to tell a lie, and he disclaimed the work. He was too vain to refuse celebrity which he was conscious of deserving. He was too intrepid to shriuk when danger had nearly passed by. Ile was too irascible to keep the secret, by the publication of which he at this time of day could injure no party with which he is connected, nor any individual for whom he cared. Beside, dear sir, we have many books of his writings upon many subjects, and all of them stamped with the same character of mind. Their general Lexis, as

« VorigeDoorgaan »