pedient brevity, to offer a critical estimate. It is obvious to remark, that there must always be some degree of awkwardness attendant on a difference of opinion between an author and his editor. To say nothing of the suspicion (for which, in the present instance, however, we are quite sure that there cannot be the slightest ground) that such a variance may have affected the trustworthiness of the translation, there is the by no means trifling inconvenience arising from the incessant tiraillade going on at the foot of the page. It is vexatious and altogether unprofitable, to be brought up, at every half dozenth sentence, by an asterisk or a dagger, warning you off the premises, and sending you down to the bottom of the page, for a consolatory assurance that the author is altogether wrong, and, by inevitable inference, the annotator right. Beyond the simple annoyance, there is, indeed, not the slightest cause of complaint. Mr. Rose never loses sight of courtesy and good humour. If his argument fails in logical cogency, it is always expressed in temperate language, and his liberal feelings never desert him. Having no intention to engage in controversy with Mr. R., we should dismiss all further consideration of this matter, were it not for an exceedingly ill-judged attempt to put down in a very summary way, the authority of Lord Chancellor King's able and business-like inquiry into the discipline of the primitive church. We have always considered that small and well compacted volume as a model of sound and impartial investigation. Without implicitly acquiescing in his Lordship's inferences, we have never found occasion to question the fairness of his statements. Nor are we singular in thus estimating this valuable book. It has been the text of many an ample dissertation; it has supplied weapons to innumerable defenders, and stood the assault of a cloud of opponents; nor has the flight of time consigned it either to obscurity or to neglect. Yet does Mr. Rose, on no better authority than that of the British Critic, give currency to the report, that the Author of this admirable treatise was induced to change his sentiments, by the perusal of a reply so thoroughly evasive and sophistical, that, if it really did produce the effect claimed for it, we should demand no better evidence that Lord King had lapsed into either dotage or dishonesty. But we discredit the statement altogether: it is precisely one of those innuendoes which a thorough-going partisan delights to make, but which a gentlemanly advocate would disdain to use, or using, would scrupulously cite its authentication. The reply in question, anonymously published, but ascribed to a clergyman named Slatyer or Sclater, is contained in a single volume, small octavo, and seems to have been popular in its day, since our copy has the third edition marked on the title-page. We have found it an amusing exercise, to compare this "Original Draught of the Pri"mitive Church," with Lord King's "Enquiry." Never have we

met with a more striking example of a case which does not occur quite so often as some may be apt to imagine, the contest between an honest inquirer after truth, and an interested contender for victory. There is, on the one side, an able and rather piquant exhibition of perverse dexterity, with an unscrupulous determination in the maintenance of thesis: on the other, are all the signs of a conscientious anxiety to bring out a right result, by full and fair investigation.

We should not have the smallest objection to rest the entire merits of the controversy, on a fair comparison of the preliminary discussion concerning the import of the term CHURCH, as used by the early Fathers. Lord King's examination is marked by a simple and direct citation of authorities, with a brief but satisfactory statement of results; while his opponent throws up a cloud of dust, mystifying a plain question so completely by evasion and special pleading, that when the reader pauses to recall the original question, he finds himself without a key to the complication of words and phrases, or a clew to their connexion with the premises. We shall make no apology for entering somewhat further into particulars touching this matter. Mr. Rose's preface is before us as fairly as are the sections of Neander; and though it may seem hardly worth while to pursue such a subject into its details, yet, when a weak point is defended by a bold front, it becomes expedient to shew the inefficiency of the guard. With this view, we shall, observing all possible brevity, bring forward an instance or two; not, perhaps, the most glaring that we could have found, but quite sufficient for the purpose.

One of the earliest objects in Lord King's work is, the definition of the term ixxλnoía; and with this view there is introduced a passage from a letter written by Dionysius of Alexandria. His Lordship's opponent elaborates in reply a many-worded plea for the purpose of giving to a republican-we use the word in distinction from democratic-phrase, a hierarchical sense. In this process, he substitutes without scruple words and meanings alien from the original document, representing the exiled Dionysius as ordering and commanding his destitute church to assemble in his forced absence; whereas the original word simply implies the act of convoking or collecting, without the slightest reference to any despotic or authoritative procedure. In a similar spirit of perversion, endeavouring to establish the diocesan authority of the same Dionysius, Sclater describes him as assisted and accompanied by presbyters and deacons, as they are subordinately now taken; while the marginal citation, lurking in the obscurity of its original Greek, speaks but of one presbyter, and that in terms which exclude all idea of subordination—my fellow-presbyter (σvμжgeoßÚTEços) Maximus.' Again, Lord King had made reference to the celebrated dictum of Tertullian, ‘ubi tres,

' ecclesia est,' for the purpose of excluding all hierarchical notion from the essential character of a Christian church. Our readers would be amused at the cool assurance with which Sclater meets this plain elementary definition. He accuses his Lordship of giving a false aspect to the phrase, by the omission of its concluding words, licet laici; and proceeds to sustain the charge by studiously disregarding the bearing and import of the whole paragraph in which this quotation stands, and by a disingenuous juxtaposition of passages which have no connection with each other in the obvious intention of the author. Tertullian's doctrine may be good or bad; but his meaning is not to be mistaken, which the omitted words do but enforce, instead of weakening. Ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici. The first four words of this aphorism might fairly enough be cited, as containing a distinct and intelligible proposition; but it required a rare intrepidity to represent the additional clause as anything less than an à fortiori qualification of the entire phrase. In truth, Sclater has here, as in other places, taken unfair advantage of the system of compression which Lord King not unfrequently carried to an extreme injurious to his reasoning, thus affording opportunity for all those tricks of controversy, of which we know no more finished specimens than may be found in this “Original Draught of the Primitive Church."

So much for the polemic who is put forward by the British Critic and Mr. Rose, as their unanswerable advocate. To resume the proper subject of the present article, it has already been stated, that Neander possesses in a very high degree, not a few of the most important qualities of the ecclesiastical historian. Secular history demands, in an especial manner, skill in the collation and selection of facts: the annals of the Church exhibit more particularly, the origin, the conflict, and the fluctuation of opinion; while facts are mainly valuable as illustrations of sentiment and conviction. Now it is difficult enough to detect, amid doubtful motives and clashing statements, the true character and consecution of events; but the difficulty is increased a hundredfold, when the infirmities, the caprices, the waywardness of the human mind and temper, are to be taken among the indispensable elements of investigation. In the first case, we may, when fairly beset, advantageously commit ourselves to the balance of probabilities; but in the latter, le probable n'arrive jamais. And when we add to these circumstances, the overwhelming consideration, that the history of God's Church is, most emphatically, the history of the Divine Counsels as exhibited in his dealings with his people,-that it is, in short, the history of the reign of God, the kingdom of Christ,-it will be manifest how difficult is the task, to give even its outline fairly, and how rare the combination of talent, learning, and piety, requisite to give anything

like completeness to the record. Simplicity, both in purpose and in manner, is the quality which, beyond all others, it behooves the ecclesiastical historian to cultivate. A fair illustration of this matter may, perhaps, be derived from a reference to the characters of two of the most deservedly popular among modern writers of history; both, unhappily, slaves to that worst of superstitions, the delusion of unbelief, but both conspicuous for mastery in the collation and narration of events. Gibbon, perhaps the ablest of secular historians, and the most skilful in what has been called la science des faits, must, from the very texture of his mind, have failed, if he had, in the veriest honesty of intention, attempted to write the history of religion. He did, in part, essay the task; and his want of success was not more the effect of malignant hostility to Christianity, than of characteristic inaptitude for such a work. Unwearied in collection, acute and discriminating in examination, luminous in exposition, so long as mere facts were concerned, no sooner did he adventure on investigations that involved principles, motives, and the complexities of mental and spiritual character, than he gave ample evidence of inadequacy. His sarcastic temper, his affected and encumbered style, his antipathy to the simple and severe in composition, were direct disqualifications for a labour demanding in every particular, habits the most opposite. Gifted with nearly all the qualities in which Gibbon was deficient, Hume might have excelled as the historian of Christianity, but for his fatal tendency to prejudice and partiality. These infirmities were by no means confined to matters connected with religious faith: they tainted his political opinions and his philosophical speculations, and they must have been either inherent in his intellectual constitution, or strangely grafted on it by an erroneous education. Qualities such as thesc, whether primitive or secondary, would probably have made him the champion of a sect, rather than the fair and liberal annalist of the Church. But the clearness and fulness of his mind, the charm of his style, the ease of his narrative, and his conversauce with mental science, must, had the right impulse been given, have made him, among ecclesiastical historians, facile princeps.

Next to the manipulation of the actual sources of Church history, we can think of no better nor more instructive authorities, than Tillemont and Mosheim. Yet, ample and comprehensive as such a course of reading may seem, the student would soon find himself at a loss for some work that should supply the discussion and concentration which are wanting to the valuable collections of the French writers, as well as give detail and enlargement to the dry anatomy and systematic views of the German. Such a work is presented to him in the volumes of Neander. Facts and circumstances are clearly, though briefly stated; but it is the way in which they are elucidated and reasoned out, that

gives its chief value to the book. As a narrative, the history is heavy and encumbered; but, as a lucid and impressive investigation of a most important subject, the volume is of high worth. In dealing with such a work, minute analysis is, of course, out of the question; and yet, it is scarcely possible to give a correct notion of its specific character in any other way. Nor is it easy to convey a correct impression of certain marked peculiarities in the Author's habits of thinking and writing, without a larger portion of extract and explanation than we feel it expedient to assign. We must therefore confine our critical luxuriancy within the limits of editorial discretion, and, without launching into expanded or protracted discussion, endeavour to give a general view of the distribution of the work, and to exhibit, on one or two leading points, a more distinct characterization of Neander's manner.

The Introductory division exhibits a philosophical view of the state of Heathenism and Judaism at the first appearance, and during the early stages of Christianity. It does not strike us that Neander has thrown new light on the questions involved in this inquiry; nor has he, in fact, gone very deep into the subject. Still, he has, in a small compass, brought together much important matter; and if he has but slightly touched the various and complicated considerations connected with the investigation, he has at least managed them, so far as he has gone, with learning and discretion. We rarely find Neander giving into that species of affectation, by far too common among the theological writers of his country, which leads ingenious theorists, like our own Warburton, to maintain paradoxical positions, apparently for the mere purpose of shewing how dexterously they can handle an intractable subject. Yet he does not appear to have altogether avoided this injurious practice. He seems, for instance, disposed to patronize the exceedingly suspicious character of Apol lonius of Tyana; a person whom ecclesiastical historians in general have agreed to set down as an undeniable impostor. Yet, this man of branded memory is exhibited as one probably pos sessed of extraordinary gifts' and 'under the influence of the Divine Spirit,' although impairing the intrusted privilege by the indulgence of spiritual pride and vanity."

'Those,' writes Neander, who, like Philostratus in the third century, have endeavoured to represent him as one of the heroes of the ancient popular religion, have injured him most deeply in the eyes of posterity. He went about to stir up and animate a spirit of religious faith, and furthered fanaticism, while he gave food! to that curiosity which inquires after the things of the invisible world. He spoke against superstition, because it served to promote immorality, when men believed that they could buy impunity for crime by sacrifices; and he declared that, without a moral state of the heart and feelings, no sacrifice could be well pleasing to the gods. He exclaimed