aspect of the history of the period it embraces, we feel that to criticise it in detail would be as unfair to the author as it would be unsatisfactory to ourselves. We shall content ourselves, therefore, with following up the brief account we have given of its contents, with a no less brief estimate of its merits. It contains a tolerably full and perspicuous, though somewhat stiff, narration of the leading facts of the Christian history during the period, and in the department, to which it is confined; interspersed with sketches of character, which, without being graphic, are just, and with reasonings and reflections which do credit to the acuteness, good-sense, and sound principles of the author. The style of the work is clear, vigorous, and idiomatic; its spirit is generous and devout; and its tendencies healthful and inspiriting. The notes speak for the extensive reading and various learning of the author, though we wish he had translated the huge extracts from German writers, of which some of them are composed, seeing all students are not Teutons. Upon the whole, we think the volume entitled to respectful notice and commendation, though we are free to say that it is not altogether such as the author's previous reputation had led us to anticipate, and that, were we to form from it an estimate of the entire work, we should be constrained to fear that, however useful such a work may prove to the parties privileged to hear Dr. Welsh's prelections, it will not be accepted by the public at large as entitled to take precedence of already existing works on the same subject.

Having thus paid our courtesies to Dr. Welsh, in return for the use of his title-page, we shall now diverge into a wider field, and devote the remainder of this article to some general remarks upon that department of literature to which his work belongs. In the course of these, we shall avail ourselves of occasional opportunities of referring to Dr. Welsh's volume.

A history of the rise, progress, and fortunes of the religion of Jesus Christ, such as should meet the demands of the present age, and be worthy of a place on the same shelf with the higher order of recent historical works, appears to us a task yet to be accomplished. The works in this department, which in this country enjoy the largest measure of popularity, are those of Mosheim and Milner, to which we may add that of Milman, published about five years ago. In all these works there is much that is deserving of commendation, and each has its own peculiar

We make no abatement from this commendation, on account of such expressions as the following:- There was insensibly ascribed to him the particulars,' p. 157-'It would be foreign from my present object,' p. 159- From the strain of the speech, I would be disposed,' p. 180, &c., believing that they may all be covered by the old apology, quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura.'

excellence, as well as its own class of readers, to whose tastes and prepossessions it is peculiarly adapted. But to the honours of such work as we have described none of them can justly aspire. Mosheim's book is accurate, candid, and orthodox; but it is deficient in depth, comprehensiveness, and philosophical discernment; it wants much which greater research, a sharper historical criticism, and a profounder insight into the actual relations of principles and events, would have conferred; and as a book for general use it is too stiff, formal, pedantic, and dry. The work of Milner, or rather of the Milners-for the one brother completed what the other had planned and commenced-must ever be highly appreciated by all genuine Christians, for its truly evangelical spirit, and the just light which it throws upon the feelings, character, principles, and conduct of the truly pious in the church of Christ, under every variety of outward circumstance; but the determination of the original author, that genuine piety alone should be celebrated' by him in his history, necessarily circumscribed his plan by limits far too narrow for the subject to which his book is professedly dedicated; nor can it be denied that he has frequently allowed his peculiar views of Christianity to bias his estimate, both of characters and events; that his sympathy for goodness often leads him to patronize the obstinacy or the weakness with which it was associated; that his confidence in ancient testimony often degenerates into credulity, and that, however useful his work may be as a book for Christian edification, from the copious illustrations of the power of Divine grace with which it is replete, it is altogether too imperfect in its details, and too loose and unphilosophical in its texture, to be put into the hands of any scientific student. To the man of taste and literature, the work of Mr. Milman will present many attractions. The graces of its style, the vigour, the fluency, and graphic distinctness of its narrative, no less than the varied learning with which it is adorned, and the spirit of free and impartial inquiry by which it is pervaded, demand for it no penurious measure of praise. On the other hand, however, we have to deplore the absence from its pages of what we would call an earnest evangelical spirit. With a quick apprehension of all that is noble and lovely in the outward development of the Christian history, the author shows little or no power of appreciating the inner and spiritual principles to which these phenomena are due. He does not sufficiently distinguish between what is essential to Christianity and what is merely accidental and accessory. Whilst he by no means overlooks the fact, that an agency, beyond what is human, was employed in the diffusion of Christianity, it is, nevertheless, to the general providence of the

Almighty, rather than to the mediatorial power of the Great Head of the church, that he calls the thoughts of his readers in the references he makes to such supernal influence. Above all, we lament his undue, and we think unseemly, deference to the sceptical speculations and hypotheses of some of the German writers; his continual effort to account for everything on natural principles; his disposition to make a compromise with the sceptic whenever that appears possible; and his timid assertion of those points which he deems it necessary to defend, as if he were half afraid, or ashamed, of being thought a believer in aught marvellous or miraculous. The spirit of a polemical dogmatist we have no desire certainly to see in an historian of Christianity; but, on the other hand, it is surely nothing more than reasonable to require that a writer who undertakes to narrate the fortunes of the Christian religion, should be, and should avow himself to be, a steadfast and thorough believer in the divine origin and veracity of that religion. We hesitate not to denounce it as pessimi exempli, that one assuming such a task should be found cavilling upon points which Christians have all along held to be essential to the claims of their religion; or should ever and anon be guilty of arresting his narrative to speculate problematically on the natural probability of events, for which there is abundant historical evidence, and to inform his readers how, for the little of a supernatural kind that is to be admitted, a continual apology must be made to sceptical wits and rationalist theologians.

Were any one who, with the learning possessed by all these writers, should combine the candour, industry, and good sense of Mosheim, the genuine piety and orthodoxy of Milner, and the genius and philosophic spirit of Milman, to undertake a history of the Christian religion, we might anticipate with confidence such a work as the importance and dignity of the subject demands. As yet, so far as we know, no such writer has so much as promised to appear.

Even from such a writer, however, we should not receive the satisfaction we desire, unless he set to work with a more correct and definite conception of the proper object of such a history than seems to have been possessed by the majority of those who have hitherto addressed themselves to the task. That object, as commonly expressed, is The Church;' and the title which most works of this class bear, is that of History of the Church.' Now, we do not know a single body of religionists to whom this phrase can represent any definite conception, excepting the Romanists. With them the Church' means that great visible society of which they are members, and within which they would confine the benefits of the salvation of Christ. Of this body a

history certainly may be written, but it would not be such as any except a Catholic could for a moment accept as a history of the church of Christ. It would, at the best, be the history of a mere section of the professed followers of the Redeemer; and that, perhaps, the least worthy of all to be assumed as the type and model of what a Christian church was designed to be.

Repudiating the Romanist conception of the church as a necessarily visible body, the Protestant understands by that term the spiritual, the mystical, the invisible body of Christ, of which all true believers, of whatever country or whatever age, are members. But, with such a definition in hand, what are we to make of the phrase A History of the Church of Christ"? How, we may ask, can a record by human pen be given of the features and fortunes of a body which is invisible to the human eye, and which no created mind can adequately estimate or describe? When, therefore, such a title is prefixed to a work, what is it but a palpable misnomer?-an announcement which promises not only more than can be performed, but what no man in his proper senses would so much as attempt to perform?

6

Dr. Welsh, so far as we are aware, is the only writer in this department who has been bold enough to vindicate the title of his book by enlarging his definition of the object of church history so as to make it commensurate with the spiritual church of Christ. The object of church history,' says he, is to give an account of the 'rise and progress, the vicissitudes and character, of that spiritual kingdom which the Almighty has established on the earth ' under the administration of his Son Jesus Christ.' (p. 1.) This is sufficiently comprehensive, but it announces a design which Dr. Welsh does not certainly, in the book to which it is prefixed, set himself to fulfil. The very language which he has employed on the title-page in describing the subdivision of his general subject, to which his first volume is confined-viz., the External history of the Church,' shows that, in spite of his own definition, his mind has been contemplating something else than the spiritual kingdom of Christ as the proper object of his history. To us it sounds almost ludicrous to speak of the external history of a spiritual kingdom-a history of that which is invisible! a history of facts concerning that which is mystical! an external history of that which is without geographical limits or formal organization! That Dr. Welsh should have fallen into this mistake is the more extraordinary, as, in one of his notes at the end of the volume, he very justly stigmatizes the attempt to write a history of Christ's spiritual church as 'not compatible with the present condition of our being,' and adds, there is satisfactory evidence that there 'has always been a spiritual community on earth, and that God

never has left himself without a witness; but we are not in 'possession of full information respecting it.' (p. 412.) It surprises us that, in writing this, Dr. Welsh did not think of recurring to his own definition of the object of church history, where he would have found that he had actually pledged himself to write a work which he here declares not to be compatible with the present condition of our being.' Such confusion of thought, on the part of such a writer as Dr. Welsh, affords an important illustration of what we are now insisting upon-the vague, indefinite, and unprofitable conceptions which, for the most part, ecclesiastical historians have been content to form of the proper object of the works they have set themselves to write.

Mosheim seems to have had some consciousness that, in preparing to write a history of the church, he had laid his hand upon a somewhat slippery and intangible subject; and he resorts to a notable expedient for rendering it more precise, and bringing it more effectively under manipulation. Vix ea (Hist. Ecclesiast.) melius exponi poterit et perfectius, quam si coetum hunc hominum, quem diximus, tanquam civitatem quandam consideremus, quæ sub legitimo imperio certis legibus et institutis regitur.' * This is, no doubt, sufficiently convenient. The only difficulty is, that it has usually been deemed imperative on historians to 'consider' their subject, not as if it were' what it most suits them to suppose it to be, but, as in stern reality, it is and has been, so far as that can be ascertained. Did secular historians consider themselves at liberty to follow in their department the course which the worthy Chancellor of Göttingen, with so much placid bonhommie, has assumed as legitimate in his, we might have such histories as should transform all history into romance. would be thought, for instance, of an historian of the Bedouin Arabs who should commence his work by gravely assuring his readers that though these Arabs were divided into many tribes and led a nomadic and lawless life, the best way of writing their history would be to consider them as if they formed one community, and were under the control of a regular government and fixed laws? By most readers, we suspect this would be regarded as a sort of friendly intimation, on the part of the author, that whatever other excellences his work might possess, that of historical veracity was not to be expected.

What

Gieseler adopts much the same expedient as Mosheim ; only, instead of quietly assuming its legitimacy, he attempts to defend it. After remarking, very justly, that to no one of the sections into which Christians are divided can the honour of being the true

* Institutiones Hist. Eccles. Præpar., § 2.