note: "my practice in these nice questions is not very great.'

Jeremy Taylor, it is said, page 55, is "the greatest ornament of the English pulpit up to the middle of the seventeenth century; and we have no reason to believe, or rather, much reason to disbelieve, that he had any competitor in other languages." Arndt, the contemporary of Taylor, has been called "the Fenelon of Germany,' with much more justice than the latter has been called "the Shakspeare of Theology." Arndt's "True Christianity," which has been translated into eleven languages, and which has passed through more than a hundred editions, originated in the pulpit. Mr. Hallam seems not to have viewed him in the light of a preacher, but merely in that of an author. Though he was unlike the English pulpit orator, he was, nevertheless, no mean competitor.

We cannot fully concur in the taste and judgment of our author, when he censures one's pulpit eloquence by saying it "is too much in the style of Chrysostom and other declaimers of the fourth century." If Chrysostom was but a "declaimer," where shall we look for the truly eloquent preacher;-to England?

The narrow range of our author's reading on the history of philosophy is every where apparent, but no where comes out with more naïveté than when he is speaking of Suarez, page 60. He there says; "Of his Metaphysical Disputations, I find no distinct character in Morhof or Brucker." He knows nothing of Tennemann's large work, which would have given him the necessary information, if he had consulted the ninth volume, page 505, nor of any of the host of later German writers on the subject, except Buhle.

It is a very common fault of our author, that, instead of giving a symmetrical view of a writer, which shall make a just general impression, he selects single traits, according as the fancy takes him, and hence rarely leads an uninformed reader to a true estimate of the men that pass under review. Whether it is that he did not concern himself about the importance of making right impressions on the minds of his readers, or whether his talent of representation lies more in presenting detached parts of subjects, than in exhibiting a true likeness in miniature, it is certain, that in his gallery of pictures not a few of his

portraits are caricatures. These remarks are illustrated in the case of Campanella, volume second, page 61.* The faults of that philosopher are set forth in bold relief, while his merits are passed by in entire silence. He did not, indeed, make many valuable accessions to the truths of philosophy, but he did much in pointing out the errors of the current philosophy. Campanella came before the public as a reformer of philosophy while young, and continued in that capacity more than forty years. As might be expected from an ardent young philosopher, who appeared as author at the age of twenty, his mind passed through many changes; and yet Hallam throws all these successive systems together as the constituent parts of Campanella's philosophy. He nods along with his good old Brucker, thinking nothing more can be required than to quote the words of Campanella. A little more acquaintance with the art of studying and writing the history of philosophy, as practised by the Germans from the days of Tennemann to Brandis, would have been of essential service to our author.

In speaking of Lord Herbert, vol. II, p. 67, he says; "It is remarkable that we find in another work of his the same illustration of the being of a Deity from the analogy of a watch or clock, which Paley has since employed. I believe that it occurs in an intermediate writer." It is nothing very remarkable. The idea originated with neither. The argument is stated as clearly and as fully by Cicerot as by Herbert, and the illustration is as nearly identical as the circumstances would allow. Can any

"like

The author is mistaken, when he says, Campanella was, his master Telesio, a native of Cosenza." He was a native of Stilo, in Calabria. When he became a monk, he made his novitiate at the cloister of Cosenza.

† An cum machinatione quadam moveri aliquid videmus, ut sphaeram (a sort of orrery), ut horas (an instrument for measuring time), ut alia permulta, non dubitamus quin illa opera sint rationis; cum autem impetum coeli admirabili cum celeritate moveri vertique videamus, constantissime conficientem vicissitudines etc. dubitamus, quin ea non solum ratione fiant, sed etiam excellenti quadam divinaque ratione? De Nat. Deor. II, 38. Again, 34: "How is it that when you observe a solarium vel descriptum, aut ex aqua, a dial or a water-glass, you perceive declarari horas arte, non casu, that the hours are indicated by art, not by chance, and yet consider the world, which embraces all the arts and all artists, to be without design?"

one read the passage of Herbert, and compare it with that of Cicero, and persuade himself that the former did not copy from the latter? It is possible that the English writers fell upon this illustration by their good genius; but he, who is accustomed to trace the ideas of authors to their sources, and observe how much more productive in what is called originality tradition is than invention, will sooner believe that the seeds of thought, scattered in ancient times, have been wafted by some lucky breeze to the right place.

Mr. Hallam apologizes, vol. II, page 67, for occupying so much space with Herbert's philosophical views, and offers as one reason for so doing the following: "I know not where any account of his treatise De Veritate will be found." And yet for twenty years all the literary world had been familiar with an incomparably more thorough and critical account than he has furnished. It may be found in the tenth volume of Tennemann.

On page 95 of the same volume, it is said: "The fathers, with the exception, perhaps the single one, of Augustine, had taught the corporeity of the thinking substance." Far from it. Only a small number entertained this view, as Tertullian, Methodius, and others. Origen is strenuously opposed to it, and maintains that the soul is strictly immaterial (douator); and in this he is followed by his school. Many of the fathers were believers in a trichotomy, as it is termed; that is, a theory which represents man as consisting of three parts, a rational spirit, an animating principle, and a body,—not altogether unlike the phrenological theory. Such were Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Apollinaris, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom, all of whom regard the first of these three elements of human nature, that is, the rational soul, as immaterial.

Hilarius, who taught that the soul existed only in union with the body, says expressly that the soul itself is immaterial and imperishable (nihil in se habet corporale, nihil caducum). Gregory of Nazianzum uniformly represents the soul as spiritual and indestructible. What confidence can we put in a writer who allows himself to hazard so many assertions upon uncertain inference, or mere conjecture?

It sometimes happens that the words of an author are given, where no idea whatever is attached to them. An instance occurs vol. II, page 123. The contents of a work of Suarez are thus given: "1. Whether there be any eternal law, and what is its necessity. 2. On the subject of eternal law, and on the acts it commands. 3. In what act (actus, not actio, a scholastic term, as I conceive) the eternal law exists (existit), and whether it be one or many." Why should the author impose such language as in the third number upon his reader, without taking the trouble to ascertain whether it had any meaning? If the work was before him, would not the chapters of the work sufficiently explain the table of contents? Actus is no scholastic term, "as we conceive," but is here probably (for the work is not at hand) used in its proper signification, not of a single act, but action in a more general sense, as that of the attribute of holiness, or of wisdom, or of both. We should not descend to so minute a criticism, but for the reason that it illustrates the negligent manner in which several parts of the work are got up.

But we cannot proceed farther with our strictures, though we have but just entered the second volume. Enough has been said to indicate the character, if not the degree, of the faults of the work. These, however, do not equally extend to all the subjects of which the author treats, but are limited chiefly to two or three classes. In respect to the others, the substantial merit of the book remains unquestionable.

EDITOR.

ARTICLE VI.

RANKE'S HISTORY OF THE POPES.

The Ecclesiastical and Political History of the Popes of Rome, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. By LEOPOLD RANKE, Professor in the University of Berlin. Second edition, in three volumes. pp. 516, 576, 512. Berlin, 1838-39. [American edition of the English translation, in two vols. Philadelphia, 1841.]*

THIS work is already in the hands of many of our readers; and yet we are persuaded, that on the appearance of this new edition, we shall be rendering a service by presenting them a brief outline of so valuable a production. But observation has led us to suppose that many of the clergy are not aware what an amount of religious instruction of an historical character may be derived from its pages; while not a few must forego the pleasure of a perusal, on account of its expensiveness. To these, a general view of the contents of the book cannot be unacceptable. The political events,† also, that have recently transpired, will excite an additional interest in the general subject.

*The article, of which we here present a translation, is taken from Tholuck's Literary Index, of May, 1839. It is evidently from the pen of the editor himself. Few men are sufficiently acquainted with this unfrequented path of church history to be competent judges of so original and rich a contribution as Prof. Ranke has here made to the historical literature of Europe. Dr. Tholuck belongs to that select number. Though he professes to give only an analysis of the work, and frequently avails himself of the language of the author, it soon becomes obvious that he draws largely from his own resources; that he understands the subject, as well as the book; and gives, as none but a master could, the distilled essence of history. We have not been careful to mark those shades of opinion in which we might sometimes differ slightly from the author of the article. For its general sentiments we hold ourselves responsible. Our references are made to the American edition.-ED.

†The reviewer here refers to the negotiation between the king of Prussia and the court of Rome, in respect to the Catholics in the Westphalian provinces, and more particularly to the archbishop of Cologne.