common degree, the anger of the author of that hypothefis. The terms in which the Margaret Profeffor of Divinity expreffes his difapprobation of the divifions in theology and arrangement of thofe divifions, propofed by a learned prelate in the fifter Univerfity, will not demolish the Remarks on Michaelis, though they may excite, in the breafts of the readers of thefe Lectures a fufpicion, that Dr. Marth even yet harbours a refentment for which no adequate provocation was ever given; and when an author is fufpected to fuffer perfonal refentment to influence his judgment, to that judgment little deference is paid.

We beg leave, however, to affure the public, that the arrangement propofed in the prefent Lecture is calculated to facilitate the ftudy of theology, by exhibiting the feveral branches of that ftudy according to their connections and dependencies, and as regularly following each other. After developing the principles on which fuch an arrangement muft be formed, and making fome judicious obfervations on the criticism and interpretation of the Bible, for which we must refer to the Lecture itfelf, the learned profeffor states the feveral parts of theology in the following order:

66 1. The first branch relates to the criticism of the Bible. "2. The fecond to the interpretation of the Bible. sc 3. The third to the authenticity and credibility of the Bible.

66 4. The fourth to the divine authority of the Bible, or the evidences for the divine origin of the religions recorded in it. "5. The fifth branch relates to the infpiration of the Bible. 6. The fixth to the doctrines of the Bible, which branch is fubdivided into

"(a) Doctrines deduced by the Church of England.

(b) Doctrines deduced by other Churches.

7. The feventh and laft branch relates to Ecclefiaftical Hiftory."

If there be any thing in the fe divifions which may not be intelligible to all our readers, we think it can only be the diftinction which is made between the criticism and the interpretation of the Bible; but by the criticifm of the Bible the learned profeffor means the methods to be employed for procuring the most correct text of the Bible; and the means to be taken for procuring a correct text are obviously different from the qualifications neceffary for interpreting the text fo procured. That this order of ftudying theology is excellent, no man acquainted with the principles of arrangement will deny; but that it would fuffer any thing by fubflituting the fecond branch for the firft, and the firft for the fecond, we are not convinced;

nor

nor can we be convinced that fuch a tranfpofition would be improper until it be proved, that the received text is fo corrupt that from it cannot be collected the general objects of the various revelations recorded in holy fcripture. This has never, we believe, been infinuated; and Dr. Marsh himself, with the candour which generally accompanies real learning, declares (p. 112) that though

"To the theologian who undertakes to eftablish the authority of the Greek Teftament it is of confequence to afcertain its very words-its very fyllables; yet for the common purposes of reli. gious inftruction the text in daily ufe is amply fufficient."

But though we think that this arrangement is fufceptible of the trifling alteration that we have mentioned, and believe that the fciences purely mathematical are alone those which admit of but one arrangement in the courfe of fludy, we readily admit that the author's arrangement is unexceptionable, and we agree with him, that

"In order to obtain both a firm conviction and a clear perception of the Christian doctrines, we must be content to travel through the paths of theology, without departing from the road which lies before us. We must not imagine that any particular branch may be felected at pleasure, as it may happen to excite in us a greater degree of intereft or of curiofity; for if this were allowable, where would be the utility of theological order? We muft ftudy the criticifm of the Bible before we can be qualified, at least before we can be well qualified, to ftudy the interpretation of the Bible; and we must obtain a knowledge of the Bible before we can even judge of the arguments which are alledged for its authenticity and credibility. But till thefe points have been established we have eftablished nothing in a religious view, and confequently if we undertake the latter branches of theology be fore we have gone through the former, we fhall not only build build, not only) the doctrines of Chriftianity, but Chriftianity itself, on a foundation of fand." P. 39.

It is thus that Dr. Marsh commences his third Lecture, which he continues by giving an account of the objects of the most valuable of thofe works known by the name of "Introductions to the Bible, and concludes with fome intereft. ing obfervations on the labours of Origen, which were directed to the emendation of the Septuagint verfion of the Old Teftament. On that learned and ingenious father he beftows very appropriate praise, and juftly confiders him as the first writer who paid attention to the criticism of the Bible; but this part of the Lecture admits not of abridg. ment, and any extract that could be taken from it would be afelefs, if not unintelligible.

In the fourth Lecture the hiftory of the criticism of the Old Teftament is carried down to the beginning of the fixteenth century, and in the detail many of our readers will find much that is probably new to them. The fhort account that is given of the Mafora appears to be very judicious; and we were inftructed as well as interefied by the luminous account which the learned lecturer gives of the critical labours of Jerom, as well as of their fate. But we have not room for an extract of any part of this Lecture of fufficient length to be useful, and like the former it admits not of abridgment.

In the fifth and fixth Lectures the profeffor details the critical history of the Greek Teftament, but not minutely, down to the year 1624, when the textus receptus was published by Elzevir. The objects of this detail are to how the neceffity of procuring a correct copy of the New Teftament; to point out the means by which this may be done; and to appreciate the value of the editions in ufe, or that have been in ufe fince the invention of printing. With a view to evince the importance of thefe objects, and to determine the mode of analyfis by which alone fome of them can be attained, Dr. Marfh fuppofes a perfon of a serious dispofition, whofe religious opinions for want of proper inftruc. tion were hitherto unfettled, applying to a Chriftian teacher for evidence of the authenticity and authority of the epiftles of St. Paul, and details very fairly the converfation likely to take place between two fuch perfons on fuch a fubject. From that converfation he juftly infers, that

"The first operation in refpect to the Greek Teftament which must be performed by a theologian, who intends to build his faith on a firm foundation, is, to afcertain what copy of the epiftles afcribed to St. Paul, what copy of an epiftle afcribed to any other Apoitle, what copy of a gofpel afcribed to this or that Evangelift,, has the ftrongeft claim to be received by us as a true copy of the author's own manufcript, whoever the author or authors may really have been, which must be left to future inquiry, or we fhall take for granted the thing to be proved. Now the investigation of this previous queftion is a work of immenfe labour. The Greek manufcripts of St. Paul's epiftles amount, as far as we know them, to more than an hundred and fifty; and the Greek manufcripts of the gofpels, with which we are ac quainted, amount to more than three hundred and fifty. But among all these manufcripts there is none which is fo far entitled, to precedence as to be received for the true copy, of which we are in fearch. In fact, the truth lies fcattered among them all; and in order to obtain the truth we must gather from them all. Nor

is

is an examination of thefe manufcripts, numerous as they are, alone fufficient for the object which we have in view. The quotations from the Greek Teftament in the voluminous writings of the Greek fathers must likewife be examined, that we may know what they found in their Greek manufcripts. The ancient verfioni muft alfo be confulted, in order to learn what the writers of thofe verfions found in their copies of the Greek Teftament. When all thefe collections from manufcripts, fathers, and versions have been formed, and reduced into proper order, we have then to determine in every fingle inftance, which among the various readings is probably the genuine reading. And that we may know how to determine, we must establish laws of criticifm, calculated to counteract the caufes which produced the variations, and by thefe means to reftore the true copy of which we are in fearch.

"Nor it cannot be fuppofed that labours for which, when taken collectively, no fingle life is fufficient, would be recommended even by a zealot in his profeffion, as forming a regular part of theological ftudy. Thofe labours are unneceffary for us; they have been already undertaken, and executed with fuccefs. But if the induftry of our predeceffers has removed the burden from our fhoulders, we must not therefore become indifferent Spectators, unconcerned whether the burden be well or ill fupported. We must at least inform ourselves of the nature and extent of those labours, or we fhall never know whether the object has been obtained for which they were undertaken. We must make ourselves acquainted with the caufes, which produced the variations in queftion, or we shall never know whether the laws of criticism, which profefs to remedy the evil, are founded in truth or falfe. hood." P. 86.

The author then details the caufes which produced the various readings found in the Greek manufcripts, in the ancient verfions, and in the voluminous writings of the Greek fathers; gives a critical hiftory of the editions of Complutum now Alcala, of Erafmus, of Stephens, of Beza, and of the textus receptus; fhows that not one of thefe editions was printed from a collection of many manufcripts, or from one entire inanufcript of great antiquity; but folemnly affures his readers of what Dr. White indeed has proved, that

"Whatever difference in other refpects may exist between the received text and the Greek manufcripts, or whatever difference may exift among the manufcripts themfelves, they all agree in the important articles of Chriftian faith; they all declare, with one accord, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrine of the P. 113. atonement by Jefus Chrift."

See his Novum Teftamentum Grace. Oxon. 1808, 1809.

We

We have been fo much pleased and inftructed by this first part of Dr. Marth's courfe of Lectures, that we fhall wait with fome impatience for the appearance of the f cond; and if the whole course be conducted with the ability with which it has been commenced, and of this we have no reafon to entertain a doubt, it will furnith a better guide to Students in Theology then any one work, with which we are yet acquainted.

ART. VIII. An Elementary Treatife on Geology, determining fundamental Points in that Science, and containing an Exami nation of fome modern Geological Sftems, and particularly of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth. By I. A. De Luc, F. R. S. Tranflated from the French Manufcript by the Rev. Henry De La Fite, M. A. of Trinity College, Oxford. 8vo. p. 415. 12s. Rivingtons. 1809.

IT

T would be a great fatisfaction to us, if we might hope, in a review of this book, to be able to do juftice to the meritorious zeal, and extraordinary exertions, of the venerable and very celebrated author, in the beft of caufes. Mr. De Luc's Geological Refearches, have long had an higher object in view, than the mere advancement of natural knowledge; the bent of his ftudies latterly has been, to collect facts in confutation of thole fyftems which have been particularly fuppofed to weaken the authority of the Bible; and it is fit that this fhould be generally known; that divines as well as naturalifts may be brought to ftudy his works. His great talents as a naturalift were established and acknowledged throughout Europe, long before he felt fo decifively called upon to direct his attention to the theological queflions, connected with the natural history of the Earth. But being particularly in the way to obferve and trace the beginning and progrefs of that deplorable fyftem of infidelity, which pervaded Germany and France in the outfet of that Revolution, which has overwhelmed the whole continent of Europe, he perceived with an aching heart, that thofe who ought to be moft watchful for the fupport and maintenance of religion, were molt ready to give up and abandon the first principles and ftrongeft holds, leaving the door open for the introduction of much falfe philofophy, immediately directed against the book of God. It is fcarcely poffible to calculate the evils likely to cufue from the efforts that have been made of late years, to break the bond of connection which ought for Kk

BRIT. CRIT, VOL. XXXV. MAY, 1810,

ever