The style of Mosheim, in the original, is extremely compact and weighty. He writes like one who has much to communicate in a short space, and who, conscious of the importance of his subject, disdains the petty artifices of language. His style also, though concise, is clear. It unites brevity with perspicuity in a high degree. We notice a similar combination of the powers of logic, with those of an elevated, yet sober eloquence. Mosheim has been called a dry writer, but unjustly. He was by no means deficient in imagination. His conceptions of characters and events were clear and vivid; and they are frequently expressed by short, but always striking figures. Still, Mosheim is not a popular writer. It would be impossible to treat the subject of ecclesiastical history as philosophically as he does, in a truly popular style. Whoever would read the "Institutes" with pleasure and profit, must be willing to undergo the trouble of thinking; and we can promise him an abundant reward. After all, the chief merit of Mosheim lies, just where it ought to, in the strong, sound sense, the impartial judgment, and the extensive information displayed in every line. This, for the historian, is the highest praise.

The former translation of this work, by Dr. Maclaine, is well known to the public. It was first published at the Hague, where the author was minister of an English church, in 1764, and since that time has gone through repeated editions, both in England and in this country. Its extensive popularity is undoubtedly to be accounted for, not so much by its own merits, as by those of the work itself. It has been popular, not on account of its excellences, but in spite of its defects. Dr. Maclaine unquestionably erred in supposing that it was necessary to alter the style and manner of the original. This was already such as becomes a grave and learned history; and to change it, was disrespectful, both to the judgment of the author, and to the taste of the public. It was as incongruous as it would be to put the dress of a dandy upon a judge

or a counselor of state.

To point out particularly the faults of this translation, is rather an invidious task; but justice to the merits of the original work, requires it should be done. In the first place, Maclaine is excessively verbose. He often multiplies words without meaning, as though the excellence of a period depended solely on its length. His translation contrasts strikingly in this respect with the original, which is as dense and compact as it could well be made: Maclaine was as studious to lengthen, as Mosheim was to abbreviate. In the second place, Maclaine is affectedly rhetorical. He chooses to say things in the large way, rather than by limitation or qualification. His study was to make his periods full and smooth, so that the ear should receive as little offense as possible. It was

Το

evidently much less his object to be certain that they contained nothing incorrect. Hence his manner is inflated and declamatory. That of Mosheim, on the contrary, is calm, sober and didacticadapted to inform, not to excite. In the third place, Maclaine frequently misrepresents the meaning of his author. It would have been strange indeed, if he had succeeded in changing the entire style and manner of the original, without affecting the matter. As it is, in his anxiety to render the thoughts more striking, and the periods more full and flowing, he often departs widely from the spirit, as well as the manner of the original. He makes circumstances striking, which Mosheim did not intend should be so, adds particulars on his own responsibility to fill up a sentence, and gives not unfrequently as certain, what Mosheim states as questionable. This was done in order to make the thoughts more " striking." There are some men who never seem to have any thing in the shape of doubt, enter their minds. They never take the trouble to investigate. They handle facts and arguments in the gross, and are always positively certain of every thing which they state. Maclaine was such a man, and the very man therefore, who should not have translated Mosheim. Mosheim is extremely cautious and guarded in all his statements. He gropes his way carefully, as though perfectly aware that he is somewhat in the dark. To Maclaine, who is so much better instructed than his master, it is all light as day. He does not think it necessary to be as abundant in limitation and qualification, as his author. Mosheim, for example, represents it as doubtful whether the Quakers were so called from their violent bodily motions when engaged in divine service, or from the exhortation which Fox gave to Bennet, a justice before whom he was brought, to "tremble at the name of the Lord." Maclaine, upon this, has an insight into the whole matter. It must have been for both these reasons; and according to this supposition he translates, or rather mistranslates the passage. Speaking of the Gnostics, Mosheim says, "they claimed ability to restore the lost knowledge of the true God." This is authority enough for Maclaine to characterize them as "those enthusiastic and self-sufficient philosophers." They might have been so; but Maclaine did not learn it from his author. We might go on in this manner, multiplying instances almost without end, where Maclaine has translated equally at random, sometimes exaggerating, sometimes mutilating, and sometimes totally falsifying the meaning of the original. This is particularly noticeable when his prejudices are enlisted, as in the case of heretics, and persecutors of the christians. On the heretics he bestows opprobrious epithets without mercy, for which he had no other authority than his own fancy. But no sect has suffered more in his hands than the Quakers.

The actual representations of Mosheim are sufficiently unfavorable; but his translator has thought fit to add high coloring and hard names of his own, in abundance. We state this from a comparison of Maclaine with the original. On the whole, the work of Maclaine has been justly characterized as a paraphrase, rather than a translation. It is not made to correspond, in matter and manner, to the original, as a grave and important history always should, and in failing to do this, Maclaine committed an inexcusable error. The language and manner of the original were carefully weighed by Mosheim, step by step, that nothing more or less than his exact meaning might be expressed; and the translator of so great a work, in so important a branch of practical knowledge, should not have been satisfied with less care and pains in translating. All who know any thing of the power of language, are aware how next to impossible it is, in a free translation, to preserve the numberless minute shades of thought which a concise writer so often hints at, rather than expresses. Pope may be excusable for paraphrasing, instead of translating Homer; for by this means we are favored with a valuable accession to the stock of literature. But the translator of a historian should be faithful to his author. Truth is here

the object not amusement.

Such is Maclaine's translation,-inappropriate, and untrue to the original. Dr. Murdock's professes to be a faithful one, and we can say, from actual comparison, that its claims are well founded. We recognize not only the thoughts, but the style and manner of Mosheim, throughout the whole translation. Not only the ground-work is the same, but the coloring, and the filling up, all correspond. But though so much pains seems to have been taken to conform this translation to the original, the style is nevertheless pure and classical. If it has any fault, we should say it is rather deficient in smoothness; it sometimes wants those terms of expression which, though they add nothing to the meaning of language, yet contribute to make it flow with ease. But what is lost in ease, by following Mosheim thus closely, is in our view, much more than made up by increased precision and force. The fault to which we have alluded, moreover, if it is a fault, is inseparable from a literal translation of any concise Latin author, and cannot be said to diminish the value of a weighty and learned history like the one before us. The value of such a history depends chiefly on the matter, not the manner. Yet in every respect, except perhaps the one just mentioned, the manner in which this translation is executed, deserves, in our estimation, the highest praise. It is worthy of the original, and makes the original appear worthy of Mosheim. The direct, straight-forward, truth-telling style of Mosheim, his great brevity, united with equal perspicuity, and his calm and sober, yet elevated

tone of expression, have been copied by the translator almost to perfection. A comparison of the translation with the original, will show that this is not extravagant commendation. We believe it will surprise every one who is acquainted with the difference in the idioms of the two languages, to find how closely Dr. Murdock has been able to follow the original, and at the same time exhibit so good a specimen of the classical use of our own language. But the chief merits of the new translation, and its great superiority to Maclaine's, finally center in this, that it presents to us faithfully the real facts and opinions of Mosheim. These are what we want, and we want them precisely as they stood in the author's mind. Maclaine cannot be trusted by the English reader, who has access to him alone, for he himself confesses, that he has "taken considerable liberties with his author ;" and no such reader can possibly determine where to make allowance for these unwarrantable "liberties," nor how great an allowance must be made. But in Dr. Murdock, we have a faithful and trust-worthy guide to the actual results and statements of Mosheim. This consideration alone, is sufficient to give the most decided superiority to the present translation over that of Maclaine.

But this is not the only point in which the new translation has the advantage of the old one. Dr. Murdock has made large and valuable additions to the work in the form of notes. More than one third of the matter in the present volume, consists of these additions. For their value, the sound learning and solid judgment of the author, are a sufficient pledge. He is known to the public as one who has applied himself with singular ability and zeal, for many years, to the study of ecclesiastical history. To those who know his acquaintance with the subject, it is needless to say, that the task of translating and commenting on Mosheim, could not have fallen into better hands. Such has been his anxiety to execute this task in a proper manner, that it has been his custom, whenever it was practicable, to verify the statements of Mosheim by a reference to the original authorities. These investigations have furnished a considerable part of the matter contained in the notes, as they have led him to discuss or expand the statements of Mosheim, or to support them by more copious references. On the subject of the early heresies and controversies of the church, the additions of Dr. Murdock are peculiarly valuable. This portion of ecclesiastical history has been greatly enlarged since the time of Mosheim, particularly by the younger Walch; and the most important results of his inquiries are now, so far as we know, for the first time transferred to the English language, and presented to the public in these notes. They will be found highly interesting to cvery one who wishes to form a correct judgment respecting the history and merits of those

early controversies and divisions in the church. In dogmatic history, likewise, great advances have been made since the time of Mosheim, by Münscher and others, whose labors contribute to enrich the present volume. But the largest additions of the translator are in the article of biography. Little is known to the christian world generally, of the fathers and other leading characters of the primitive church; and that little is hid in ponderous tomes, as repulsive as they are inaccessible to the majority of those who would be interested in such information. We regard it therefore as a service to the religious community, that Dr. Murdock has drawn forth from these recesses whatever is interesting respecting the lives and writings of those men of ancient days. We recommend these notices to those who are curious to know how men felt, and thought, and acted, in former times. Unless we greatly mistake, there is a sort of man-worship paid by some otherwise good and sensible people, to the early fathers, considered both as theologians and as christians, which might be effectually cured by perusing these notices.

The period of church history embraced by the present volume, extends from the christian era, to the time of Charlemagne. The points of greatest interest in the theological annals of this period, are the Arian and Pelagian controversies. Of the history and merits of the latter, we propose to treat more at large hereafter. It may not be uninteresting to our readers to present them here with some account of the former, especially as the volume before us contains some new information on the subject. This controversy arose in the year 317, respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. Sabellius had before denied, that there is any distinction of persons. in the Godhead. He maintained that the Son, Jesus Christ, is God, only as a divine energy was exerted through him, and that the Holy Spirit is only the influence or operation of God on the minds of his creatures. This amounts simply to the doctrine of a threefold manifestation of the divine attributes. According to this scheme, God, considered as creating and governing the world, is the Father; considered as accomplishing the work of redemption through the man Christ Jesus, is the Son, or the Word, yos; and considered as influencing the minds of men to holiness, is the Spirit. These views of Sabellius must be kept in mind, to explain the following account of the origin and early progress of the Arian controversy, which we extract as a specimen of Dr. Murdock's translation.

Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria,-it is uncertain on what occasion,-expressed himself very freely on this subject in a meeting of his presbyters; and maintained, among other things, that the Son possesses, not only the same dignity as the Father, but also the same essence. But Arius, one of the presbyters, VOL. IV.

18