dered it desirable that as little delay as possible should occur in the preparation of the English work," were the utility or necessity of supplying a proper, comprehensive, and philosophical text-book of spiritual religion as an antidote to these same views. So far we are ready to listen with all attention, for the subject is of the profoundest interest. Let us inquire the principles of our new guide. They are certainly sweeping and comprehensive enough. The translator, doubtless, conceived that others were merely assailing the outworks; here was an author not afraid to storm the citadel. It may be instructive to examine the tactics of this adversary to superstition and priestcraft.

In

We have spoken of the disinclination of the philosophic ultra-spiritualists of the continental Protestantism to admit a downright material prodigy of any kind, such as does not arise out of exalted and sublimated states of mind and feeling. All wonders of this kind are unworthy of the lofty "simplicity of the Gospel ;" magical surprises to which it does not condescend. fluences and powers which we do not ourselves feel, which do not at once make us consciously wiser and better, are the inventions of a spurious heathen taste, forced upon pure Christianity in the corrupt platonizing and orientalizing times of the ancient church. Mysteries, initiations, purifications, priestly ordinances, pomp and ritualism, came in then; and with them a wretched fashion of interpreting and interpolating Scripture, so as to make it a little book of wonders to awe and astonish the people. The philosopher can rise above this; the pious simplehearted believer wants no such marvels, no such opera operata as the healing of a disease by touching a handkerchief, or receiving the shadow of an apostle-the shadow of a “poor sinner like ourselves."

Now, as the very outset of the apostolic history meets us with a remarkable miracle, that of the day of Pentecost, it becomes necessary to provide for some mode of meeting this startling interference of the supernatural with the course of mere physical nature. Every Christian will remember that the wonder of the Jewish visitants from "every nation under heaven" was excited by "hearing, every man in his own tongue wherein

he was born," the apostles preach the astounding message of God. Dr. Neander, who has no great objection to admit spiritual miracles (this is the very tendency to which we are drawing attention) but is grievously disinclined to every other, boldly maintains that this means-any thing but what it expresses; as for instance, that probably the multitude were so excited by the divine fervour with which the Apostles spoke, that they rapidly translated what was said, and thus thought they heard them in their own tongue; or that-if we must have any real alteration of language many of the preaching disciples had originally known the languages of the adjacent countries, and in their state of celestial zeal fell back upon their old habits; but that it is much better to interpret the "new tongues," as in all cases importing only new and exalted expressions to suit the high state of grace they had reached. The previous miracle of the "tongues of fire," depends only on the depositions of those who saw them (tolerable evidence one would imagine in the case of inspired apostles); and the whole affair may have been a false objectivity given to what was really operating within. Dr. Neander observes (and here is the point we insist on) that the miracle would be as great in the inward form as the outward; but the outward is plainly too material, too earthly, too magical for his taste. It would be a mere "opus operatum." On the whole, however, he admits that "there is nothing in the narrative which renders such a supposition necessary"-a concession for which we hope we feel properly grateful; and declares that for his part he cannot look upon the narrative as "something purely mythical.'

"

Soon after comes the awful vengeance on Ananias and Sapphira. Dr. Neander, having observed that it is not easy to say whether St. Peter detected the hypocrisy of Ananias "by the immediate influence of God's Spirit, or by a natural sagacity derived from the same source," proceeds to remark that in the death of that unhappy man "the divine and the natu ral seem to have been closely connected." And as to Sapphira-" the words of the apostle were in this instance aided by the impression of her husband's fate, and striking the con

-a

science of the hypocrite, produced the same effect as on her husband". highly rational account of the process, and pleasantly calculated to remove all idle feelings of surprise at the result. Nor should the expressions of the narrator here or elsewhere produce any difficulty; the biographer of the apostles put together the documents before him as he best could, 66 according to the means of information within his reach;" nor are we bound to any thing he writes further than as detailing his impressions of the course of events. In this respect, however, St. Luke need not complain, for he was not far below the apostles themselves, who received only a very gradual enlightenment even in their written works. Thus poor St. James "remained confined in a form of imperfect doctrinal development" to the end of his days, and at best was "like Luther (vol. ii. p. 235) when he (Luther) had already attained to a knowledge of justification by faith, but before he was aware of the consequences flowing from it in opposition to the prevalent doctrines of the Church”— a degrading comparison to a mere apostle with which it is surely quite unfair to insult Luther, now that he no longer lives to defend himself from the imputation.

When St. Stephen appeared before the council" they were struck with the heavenly repose and serenity which beamed in all his features, &c." and thence it is probable that some of the Sanhedrim said he looked like an angel. In the dying moments of the martyr he beheld with a prophetic glance a symbolical vision-" Christ whose glorious image was probably present to him from actual early recollection"an ingenious device to diminish the miracle, which unfortunately cannot be wholly expunged.

The two stupendous miracles of St. Peter at Lydda and Joppa might, one would imagine, demand something more than cursory notice from a historian of the apostles. Dr. Neander rapidly notices and escapes them as "the cures (one of them a raising from the dead!) effected in Christ's name at Lydda and Joppa," which "drew upon the apostle the universal attention of that extensive district."

But the metaphysical jugglery by which the interview of the Angel with Cornelius is disposed of, far

surpasses this. Dr. Neander admits that "the appearance of the angel may be considered an objective event," and goes into elaborate argument to vindicate that astonishing liberality of concession. But he soon qualifies this unworthy superstition. "We need not suppose any sensible appearance. Cornelius himself is the only witness for the objective reality of the angelic appearance, and he can be only taken as a crediblę witness of what he believed that he had perceived." [The inspiration of the history has been long since utterly exploded by the guides of this continental Christianity.] On the other hand, Cornelius seems to have "considered the pointing out of Peter's place of residence not as something that came to his knowledge in a natural way, but as a supernatural communication." But then "it is possible he had heard it mentioned by others casually in conversation, but as he had not thought further about it, it had completely escaped his recollection, and now in this elevated state of mind what had been forgotten was brought back again to his consciousness without his thinking of the natural connection." "After all," adds the speculator, "this is only possible, and we are by no means justified in considering it necessary. The possibility there

fore remains, that this information was communicated in a supernatural way;" that is, observe, "by an operation on the inward sense." As to the corresponding vision of St. Peter, it is utterly impossible to extricate any distinct account of it from the mass of words in which the description is involved. The clearest expression we can discover is, that "the divine and the natural were intermingled together not so as to obscure the divine." However, as that miracle was altogether inward, there is not the same necessity for the ingenious glosses of our commentator to save the credit of spiritual Christianity.

We arrive at the awful scene which opened the career of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. Our readers know well how Lord Lyttleton and others have insisted on the conversion of St. Paul, taken in connection with all its circumstances, as adequate of itself alone to bear the whole weight of the proof of the truth of the Christian religion. Our pious and excellent

Dr. Neander has reached a region above the necessity of such cold material demonstrations. "This event may strike us as sudden and marvellous, only because the history records the mere fact, without the various preparatory and connecting circumstances which led to it; but by making use of the hints which the narrative furnishes to fill up the outline, we may attempt to gain the explanation of the whole on purely natural principles." Accordingly, it appears that St. Paul travelled to Damascus in a great conflict of mind (!) between Christianity and Judaism; on his way he and his followers were overtaken by a violent storm; the lightning struck Paul, and he fell senseless to the ground. He attributed this catastrophe to the avenging power of the Messiah, whom in the person of his disciples he was persecuting, and confounding the objective and subjective [Dr. Neander's perpetual resource, it will be observed], converted this internal impression into an outward appearance of Christ to him, &c." And as to his sudden meeting with Ananias in Damascus, it is quite clear that Paul and he were previously acquainted; at all events, Paul had heard of him, and his imagination formed the whole into a vision; while on the other hand, just at the same critical moment, the very same thing happened to Ananias "on similar psychological principles!"

Having detailed all this hopeful hypothesis, Dr. Neander takes courage and affirms that he really does not think it probable, though we must allow the possibility of such preparatory circumstances. "Instead, therefore, of following this explanation, which is attended with great difficulties, we might rather conceive the whole, independently of all outward phenomena, as an inward transaction in Paul's mind, a spiritual revelation of Christ to his higher self-consciousness, &c." Still, he grants, this will scarcely explain the manner in which the attendants were affected.

he leaves it.

And so

From St. Paul we descend to the prophetic personage named Agabus, at Antioch. St. Luke instructs us, who are old-fashioned enough to take words in their ordinary meaning, that this man was inspired to predict a certain famine, which is known to have

afterwards taken place about A.D. 44.

Dr. Neander thinks that according to the New Testament idiom, the man would have sufficiently fulfilled the "prophetic" character in merely preaching the duty of charity to the Antiochian believers, and that as to the prediction, "it is possible that the prophecy was founded on the observation of natural prognostics."

Still there are some narratives cannot be got over by any ingenuity, and even Dr. Neander must take the Gospel subject to them. The healing of the lame man by Peter is one of these, and the similar miracle of Paul at Lystra. On the latter he adds a kind of apologetic note, and observes that to any one who has not a mechanical view of nature "it cannot appear wholly incredible" that such things should be possible.

The prophetess at Philippi was a somnambulist who characterized Paul as "a servant of the most high God," from the operation of the most ordinary motives in her convulsive fits, and whom Paul seems to have addressed as a demoniac from narrow Jewish notions of possession. In the same way the affair of the sons of Sceva at Ephesus is slurred over as certain "unhappy consequences," manifestly from a disinclination to dwell on the invincible simplicity of the recorded fact. ›

Some of the miraculous events recounted in the Acts are deliberately omitted. Such are the two angelic liberations of Peter, Acts v. xii., and the restoration of Eutychus. In a narrative so minute as that of Dr. Neander, what reason but one can be assigned for this? The man is plainly ashamed of them, writing as he does for the perusal of his German fellow theologians. And yet how miserably inconsistent is this cowardice! two or three downright external miracles he is forced to admit without qualification; and if two, or one such event be possible, five thousand are.

For

We need scarcely add that Dr. Neander adds the weight of his judgment to sink the reputation as inspired of almost every portion of the New Testament which they have ever been accustomed to hear brought in question.

The twenty-first chapter of St. John's gospel is of course not his. The second epistle of Peter is plainly apocryphal. The epistle of Jude is by no apostle, The epistle to the

Hebrews is not Paul's, but the work of some Alexandrian Jew, who " arbitrarily explains some things." The Apocalypse is not only not the work of the apostle John, but is a figure founded chiefly on an absurd notion among the Christians of the resurrection of the Emperor Nero; Nero being the beast which was, and is not, and yet is;" and he coming from "the east" with his ten satraps, who are the ten horns of the beast, the waters of the Euphrates being "dried up" to make way for them.

Nor will it be very necessary we should state that Dr. Neander's views upon the mysterious truths of Christianity are altogether indefinite. We only request our readers to observe the continued operation of the principle we have hinted already—the recognition of nothing in religion except what can be shown directly to affect the mind and feelings of man by some easily intelligible connexion.

At the close of a voluminous exposition of the apostolic doctrine, in which the minutest connexions of moral theology are (and sometimes with great ability) traced, we are informed in a passing remark, that "from this trinity of revelation, as far as the divine causality images itself in the same, the reflective mind, according to the analogy of its own being pursuing this track, seeks to elevate itself to the idea of an original triad in God;" in other words, that the really revealed doctrine is that of a threefold operation in the mind of believers, the corresponding doctrine being all intimation and inference and "the analogy of our own being." The divinity of the Logos Dr. Neander seems to admit, but so involving it in all the abtrusest forms of metaphysics, that we cannot clearly perceive whether he allows it any distinct personality; of the personality of the Holy Spirit nothing more satisfactory is discoverable than the sentence we have cited. The Atonement in like manner is accounted for in such fashion as to make the death nowise more efficacious in this respect than the life of Christ; and all, that we may have nothing in religion which is not directly "spiritual." "The sacrifice of Christ obtains its due significance only in this moral connexion, not as an opus operatum [a favourite term of opprobrium], as the sacrifice of animals,

but as the act of one who, revealing the eternal divine essence in human nature, and exhibiting the perfect union of the divine and human in a holy human life, verified it also in death as the termination of a life which had been the revelation of the eternal Spirit of God in a sinless, holy humanity." And all through, the teaching of the different apostles is distinguished and individualized as the "doctrine of Paul," the "doctrine of John," of " Peter," of "James," in a way which certainly is not calculated to impress very deeply the conviction (which, however, is fairly stated) that these men were all but organs of the one Holy Spirit. But in point of fact, it is wholly impossible to draw any accurate line of distinction between Dr. Neander's conception of the kind of inspiration they possessed and that enjoyed by any holy man of a comprehensive and powerful intellect,-for instance (though he would be the last to suggest the comparison), by the pious and highly gifted author hiinself.

The thought may occur to the reader of these criticisms-why direct attention to such heterodoxies? Our answer is plain and decisive. From no sneering infidel would we stoop to cite them. We cite them because, such as they are, they are a development of a real religious tendency; because this man is, with all this, one of the loftiest living expositors of his own peculiar side of Christianity— the purely spiritual and internal; gifted in the highest degree with keen and sensitive apprehension of its beauties, and exemplifying them in the beauty of his own life. He is "the holy Neander." It is out of the very intensity of these spiritual apprehensions (insufficiently counterbalanced by the proper antagonist force) that the views have grown which we have thought it a duty in the present remarkable religious crisis to notice. The office of an honest guide in these days, indifferent to all things but truth and the judgment of his God, is to check violent re-actions in either extreme; and this is one of them. Minds ardent and comprehensive, given to search the principles of things, and unsatisfied without sweeping and absolute generalizations, are above all others exposed to the danger of extremes. Their tendency is to form a system-by whatever self-flattering

title they please to call it, still a system; and the spirit of a system is, to avoid or deny exceptions. A perfect system is that which has no exceptions; and men in proportion as they invent and idolize their systems, are betrayed into wilfully neglecting or distorting the exceptions which they cannot fairly reconcile. That tendency can be manifested by all schools; the proof is, that every man sees it in his adversary, though blind to its workings in himself. Mere ritualism can be carried to a frigid and disgusting extravagance, but it is not the only extreme assuredly; nay, the alarming spread of accomplished and scientific Socinianism on the Continent and in America, shows us too plainly that it is not even the more dangerous one. Our present example is short of this; it is not the less instructive on that account. Here is a man who has advanced in the religion of faith and emotion until he has felt an utter and manifest repugnance for all which does not directly relate to the conscious life of faith and of the Spirit. Other men of less philosophical comprehension, and therefore more easily satisfied by indeterminate views, would travel the same way, and only forget the awful mysteriousness of religion; he could not be content with this indecision. He must refer in some way to the point; finding it written in every page of the New Testament, he must attempt some solution of the phenomenon. He tries to do so. But the practical has at last all but absorbed the historical. Eagerly and earnestly he cries to the contending parties to come with him to the mount of holy contemplation, and leave below them, as they rise, these varying and fantastic clouds of "dogmatic" speculation. This is "the spirit of true freedom, exalted above all the strife of human parties." "God grant," he cries, "(what is far above all theological disputations), that the highest aim of our labours may be, to produce the image of Christ in the souls of men . . each one in his own sphere unmoved by the vicissitudes of opinion and the collisions of party!" Amiable man! who will not echo the prayer? But who that knows the unspeakable preciousness of a distinct creed as the basis of true devotion, will not lament that such zeal should class among the "vicissitudes of opinion" the very

foundations of that one eternal body of connected truths which it was the privilege of the Church of Christ in the beginning to receive, and is her duty for ever unaltered to transmit? And who that sees such results as these among men of unquestioned sincerity and unquestioned holiness-who that is capable of looking at the matter for one half hour without prejudice or the spirit of party, and has common gratitude for the immeasurable mercies of Providence-but must rejoice to think that it is not left to us, each for himself, to begin a voyage of discovery, as these men do, in the Scriptures; but that the true system of scriptural truth comes down to us in the Scriptures and with the Scriptures the inheritance of the Church of Christ for ever, fixed at the first and fixed unto the end; the deposit which popery may corrupt by her gross additions, rationalism enfeeble by her as groundless subtractions, but which God still graciously preserves among ourselves, when he bestows on us, all unworthy as we are, a free Bible to learn, and a faithful Church to teach it!

Oh that, understanding this our inestimable felicity of position, we were all fully alive to the high duty of earnestly defending it-more solicitous to call out the special advantages we possess, than needlessly impatient to ally ourselves with other com. munities, in whatever extreme they dwell! Oh that, on the other hand, with humbleness and affectionateness of spirit, based upon the conviction of the one holy truth we hold, we could all rise above the dishonesty of mutual slander, the misery of mutual recrimination, and rejoice to receive admonition of whatever form each from the other, knowing that God has so planned his Church as to bind its members in the very sense of their mutual wants and mutual assistances,each being the supplement of the rest, and he the inspirer and protector of all! For open manifest error let there be no quarter; but let cautious charity guide our judgments as to what truly deserves the name. If any man dare to say, I will not so dishonour the Faith of Christ as to preach the obligation of his Law, sternly be such a one condemned; but not for his sake let the thousands of excellent men through our land, who console sinners