a connected series the lives and pious meditations of all the best men that have lived under the christian dispensation, would answer many useful purposes, and would be on the whole a very good book. But it certamly would not be a good history of the church in any proper sense of that word, since from the very principle of its construction, it would be materially deficient in the information which such a work is expected to give. Milner gravely tells us in his Introduction, that an history of the perversions and abuses of religion is not properly an history of the church; as absurd would it be to suppose an history of the highwaymen that have infested this country, to be an history of England; and indeed we might give this as a specimen of our author's profound and discriminating observations. It is true we do not expect to find in the history of any country, a history of its robbers and beggars. But what would Milner have said to a history of England, in which the reigns of Edward the Third, and Henry the Eighth, were entirely omitted or slightly touched upon, because forsooth they were bad men and trampled on the laws. Besides, a work composed upon this plan, however well executed, could answer but very imperfectly the moral purposes of an ecclesiastical history. The office of an ecclesiastical historian is not to give us merely a dry chronicle of facts, nor yet to fatigue us to death, by a tedious recital of the religious experiences of honest well-meaning men. His object is, or at least it ought to be, to teach us human nature, as it is affected by religious truth and religious error; to point out the thousand forins which faith and piety and religious zeal have assumed ; to show the mutual influence which church and state, religion and learning, have had on one another; to convince us that there have been good men and bad men of all persuasions, and in all religious connexions; above all to demonstrate the absolute futility of all arguments in favour of a disputed doctrine, drawn from its antiquity, its general reception or the authority of distinguished names; and in fine, to make us truly and, thoroughly liberal with respect to all sectarian differences, in the same sense and in the same way, that travel and an extensive acquaintance with he world, make men liberal as to all local prejudices. These are the proper objects of ecclesiastical history; but it is plain that none of them can be compassed on Milner's 'new plan." We admit that some writers have dwelt too exclusively on the errors and corruptions of the church, and in a tone too of sarcasm, or levity, or heartlessness, which we altogether disapprove; and the tendency of which upon common readers, must be to produce a deep and inveterate scepticism. Among such writers we must class Gibbon, Middleton, and Robinson, amusing and instructive as we consider them in other respects. Still we cannot but think that truth is often as much advanced by a judicious exposure of error, and piety by the unmasking of hypocrisy, as by any other means. And though we must regret that men calling themselves Christians, and the only Christians, should ever have resorted to arts and practices that have brought dishonour upon the Christian name, yet as such has been the fact, it may be well for the public to be apprised of it, as it may do something to prevent a recurrence of similar impositions. We have said more perhaps than was necessary upon our author's plan, as he does not scruple to depart from it himself whenever it suits his purpose. It is against the manner and spirit with which he has executed his plan that we would be understood principally to protest. Indeed he seems to have thought of his plan merely because it affords him a fairer pretext for saying nothing but what is good of the orthodox, whom he chooses to consider as the church, and nothing but what is bad of the heretics, whom he chooses to consider as the adversaries of the church. What really distinguishes the work before us from all others of the kind is that it is an avowed attempt to make it appear that there has been no piety, no humility, no real virtue out of the orthodox communion. 6 Yet I shall beg leave,' says the author, 'to insist on the necessity of our understanding certain fundamental principles, as necessary to constitute the real gospel. The divinity of Christ, the atonement, justification by faith, regeneration-we have seen these to be the principles of the primitive church, and within this inclosure the whole of that piety which produced such glorious effects has been confined, and it is worthy the attention of learned men to consider whether the same remark may not be made in all ages.' I. 142. Speaking of the modern Unitarians he asks, 'Are these the Christians of the three first centuries? Were they such men as these whom Celsus scorned? No surely. If they were, their worldly ambitious spirit might easily have found some of the many pretenders to the Roman empire with whom they might have united. We should have seen Christians active in politics, bargaining with different competitors for the empire, and insisting on some communication of temporal powers and privileges to themselves. Men so void of heavenly ambition would have displayed that which is of the earth; and had Ebion's religious sentiments been then as prevalent as now, the humble, meek, charitable, passive, Christians would not have adorned the historic page; but the turbulent, aspiring, political sons of Arius and So cinus would have been the predominant characters of the foregoing narrative.' I. 506. However melancholy may have been the scenes of human wickedness, which we have reviewed, and however faint the marks of godliness in any person, still real virtue was seen the attendant of orthodox sentiments alone.' II. 167. I love to lay open to the reader all along the connexion between principle and practice,' says Milner, while he is lauding the praises of SAINT Auston, the father of modern orthodoxy'and if I show not the indisputable superiority of the orthodox Christians, in disposition and temper, I miss one of the most important points which I have in view through the whole history.' II. 371. We see therefore that the real object of this book is not to give a history of the church, properly so called, nor to promote the interests of piety and practical Christianity-but to aid the views of a party; and to this object every other consideration is made to yield. What degree of historical fairness and fidelity can be expected from an author writing for such a purpose, and under such influences, we might leave it for the public to judge. A man must be expected, under any circumstances, to feel and show some degree of partiality for those who have held and defended his own sentiments. In estimating the comparative virtue and intelligence of these men and their opponents, he will, however, if a candid writer, make allowances for this partiality, and guard against this very natural bias, as he would guard against any other temptation, that might lead him into error. When, therefore, a writer comes forward, like Milher, who, instead of a mere pardonable and guarded leaning in favour of his own party, arrogates to them all the piety, and all the humility, and all the virtue when, too, in contempt even of the appearance of candour, he has the effrontery to avow this in the very outset, and in so many words to declare that he shall miss one of his most important points' in writing, if he does not confirm and propagate this prejudice--what man in his senses would put any confidence in the representations of such a writer? The foregoing remarks are applicable to any historian, but particularly to the ecclesiastical historian from the peculiar nature of his subject and the materials. No distinguished partizan in the church, whether orthodox or heretical, ever lived in the times to which Milner's history relates, who has not had two opposite and irreconcilable characters given him by his cotemporaries-one by his friends, the other by his enemies. The historian, therefore, who is so disposed, may adopt one of these representations throughout, and reject the other altogether, and New Series-vol. IV. 39 the man stands before him-a saint or a devil, just which he pleases. Our author, as might be expected, has followed this course in all cases; for we doubt whether a single instance can be adduced, in which he has set aside, or even qualified, the statements of orthodox writers by the equally respectable testimonies of cotemporary heretics. In this way he finds no difficulty in giving the utmost license to his partialities, without going counter to his documents: for his partiality discovers itself, not in wresting his documents, but in selecting them. Besides, another circumstance should be considered in this connexion, for which, however, Milner makes no allowance--that while the orthodox authorities have been carefully preserved to us, the works of the early heretics have for the most part been suppressed and destroyed; especially those which contained their own vindication, or exposed the vices and follies of their persecutors. We see, therefore, how easy it was for our author, notwithstanding all his parade of documents, and his pretending to derive his statements from cotemporary authorities, to give a history to all intents and purposes as partial, and we had almost said as fabulous, as if it had been throughout of his own invention. Not, however, that Milner thinks any sort of testimony to be necessary in many cases to establish his points. The very circumstance that a man was orthodox, is to him proof sufficient that he was a good man; and, on the other hand, the single fact that a man was heterodox, is proof sufficient that he was a badOne circumstance, man; and he sets them down accordingly. he observes, which convinces me that genuine godliness, the offspring of Christian principles, must have been with the primitive monks, is because they generally vindicated the Nicene faith and could not endure Arianism.' (II. 106.) And again he says, (II. 209.) ' a man ought no more to plead the pretences or conscience for rejecting the fundamentals of the gospel, [before enumerated] than for the commission of murder, theft, or any other criminal action'--thus making a rejection of orthodoxy to imply, not merely an error in judgment, but a destitution of moral principle. Such a man may indeed be said to write an ecclesiastical history upon a 'new plan. We do not complain of a man's attachment to his principles, nor of his believing in their superior efficacy, nor of his gratitude and respect for those, who, in former times, have defended and illustrated them. All this is natural, and we presume universal; at least we know that such are our own feelings and convictions: but we hope never to suffer them to pervert our moral judgments. We can have no patience with a man like Milner, who deliberately sets himself to the task of glossing over the gross ignorance and palpable superstitions of the orthodox Fathers, merely because they were orthodox; denying or excusing or vindicating their bigotry and intolerance;* palliating and even justifying their persecuting spirit; except indeed when it proceeded to put heretics actually to death, which he acknowledges is carrying a wholesome discipline a little too far. Mark however the guarded and tender expressions in which he rebukes them for shedding human blood. I scarce know any thing,' he remarks more disagreeable to the spirit of a really good man, than to think of punish. ing CAPITALLY, persons whom he is constrained to believe, are walking the broad road to eternal destruction.' (II. 189.) As for the early heretics, we have no interest in defending them from the aspersions cast upon them by Milner and others. It is probable they shared with the orthodox, the virtues and vices prevalent in their age; and perhaps equally, except that the persecuted are generally better men than their persecutors; partly because they have not the power and opportunity to do so much wrong, and partly because the very oppressions which they endure have a tendency to imbue them with better feelings. It is certain, however, that they have been greatly misrepresented, To borrow the language of the calm and judicious Lardner ; 'some seem to have reckoned that they have a right to say the worst things of heretics, which they could; and others have thought themselves obliged to believe all the evil that has been reported of them.' 'It is improbable, continues the same writer, that these men should have exceeded all others in vice. Neither can it be to the honour of Christians or their religion to multiply sects or divisions among them, or to aggravate and multiply their faults. In all bodies that are numerous, there will be some lewd and profligate persons; but that whole sects and parties should practise and teach wickedness, is very unlikely, and ought to be well attested before it is believed.t Our * See on this subject Chap. XVII. Cent. IV. on 'Ecclesiastical EstabJishments; which contains a wretched attempt to vindicate the interpo sition of the civil arm to punish beresy. From such a writer we might expect such a remark as the following: But without an establishment provided by the state, the greater part will scarce have any religion at all; wickedness will be practised on the boldest scale; and if the form of government have a large portion of liberty in its texture, the manners will be egregiously dissolute' (11.222) Our own country, thank God, is ' without an establishment provided by the state,' and our government also has a large portion of liberty in its texture;' but have the consequences been as stated above? Is it possible that our citizens, that congregationalists, that the descendants of the Pilgrims, can wish to have such slavish maxims disseminated? † Lardner's Hist. of Heretics, Sect. viii. We cannot refrain from giving in this place the character which Milner is pleased to award to Dr. Lards |