The following passage, referring to the case of Cornelius, is a great admission, coming from the quarter whence this work

emanates:

"Naturally enough all those go wrong who are disposed to see a rule in the order which here occurs in the communication of the Spirit, and the ministration of baptism. Such a disposition will exist of course in all those who in baptism look pre-eminently to the external and human element, and despise what is sacramental in it. It is, therefore, in no wise surprising if Calvin fancies that this passage furnishes an ample support for his own view of baptism, while the anabaptists also are proud of adducing it above all others."-Vol. I., pp. 282, 283.

The mission of S. Barnabas to Antioch (xi. 22) seems to have been rather with a view to inspect and encourage the new body of converts than to complete or ratify; and his character of a "good" (ayadós) man is added to show that by virtue of this benevolence he was able to repress any inclination to censure what was at least an abnormal condition of discipleship, (p. 290.)

The term Christian first applied to believers in that city was given them by the heathen, who then began to see that they were as essentially distinct from the Jews in their religious opinions as they were decidedly opposed to heathenism itself.

Contemporaneously with the rise of the Church in the Gentile city of Antioch, the hostility in Judea reached its greatest height under Herod Agrippa, the Edomite, a descendant of a nation the predestined foe of Israel, (Gen. xxv. 23, et sqq.)1 who put to death one of the apostolic band, and seized also on S. Peter. Its retribution lingered not long. Like Nebuchadnezzar, the tyrant Herod was struck down in the zenith of his pride, and for all the malice and power of its enemies "the word of God grew and multiplied."

III. The third book of the Apostolic History, which takes up a quarter of the first volume, and the whole of the two remaining volumes, of Dr. Baumgarten's work, comprising the narrative of The Church among the Gentiles, is too long for us to attempt to give any accurate account of its contents. In tracing the introduction of Christianity among the Gentiles from Antioch to its further developement under S. Paul and S. Barnabas, the author lays great stress on the position which he maintains, that the reason why we have no account of the labours of the twelve Apostles is tó

1 Dr. Baumgarten thus expresses his view of the "new shape of the world's. [typi fied by Rome] empire," exhibited in the case of Herod: "In the times of the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Greek empires, the hostility of the world against the kingdom of God rested chiefly on this, that these empires would and could abide with no public body alongside of themselves which had its own ordinances and practices opposed to the pre-eminence of the world. Now, however, when the King of Heaven has made His appearance on earth, and coincidently therewith the kingdom of the Spirit has been set up, the hostility does not, indeed, first show itself there where the empire of the world maintains itself as such; but there where the muŋdane empire appears under the guise of a heavenly one-not in Rome but at Jeru. salem."Vol. I., pp. 311, 312.

VOL. XVII.

be found in the fact that they had no hand in the first founding of the Church among the heathen, (p. 348;) and he draws from this an inference that their governing power was superseded by some direct outpouring of the HOLY SPIRIT. But, in answer to this, it must be remembered that S. Barnabas had direct mission from the original Apostles, and was indeed admitted into their number, and S. Paul's toils and journeys are to be considered rather as examples of what all the Apostles did and suffered after they had quitted Jerusalem, than as an account of all that was then effected.

The theory as to the Church at Antioch being founded without the co-operation of the Apostles is consistently applied to the foundation of the Church at Rome, which our author maintains (vol. III., pp. 309-313) to have been planted "neither by an Apostle, nor by an Apostle's disciple, but by men without name and office." We quote the succeeding passage as explaining, not without eloquence, the notion of the writer.

"For it is this fact only, that, in the metropolis of the Roman kingdom of the world, a Church of CHRIST has been formed in a hidden manner by the work of the Spirit,-a congregation consisting chiefly of Gentiles;-it is this fact alone which can counterbalance the other fact which unceasingly burdens the heart of the Apostle, the fact, namely, that in Jerusalem, the city of GoD, by the power of the devil and the wickedness of man, that organ of GOD's kingdom has been destroyed which He had, thousands of years ago, prepared. For, if there be in the Roman metropolis a number of men who do not recognize, in the visible emperor, the bearer of the highest power and authority among men and nations, but in the invisible LORD who occupies heaven, and who, as the Crucified One, departed from the worldthen indeed the firmest stronghold of Satan among all nations and tongues has been taken. And if such has been accomplished without its being possible to point out any instrumentality of the holy people, or the Divine office, if it has been accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit, who, in an original way, creates and forms His instruments: -then it has been made manifest to the whole world that the hardening of Israel, and the putting of the primitive Apostles into the back ground, is so far from destroying and doing away with the kingdom of GOD, that, on the contrary, the creative power and influence of the Holy Spirit are only the more gloriously exhibited thereby ;-that, accordingly, the kingdom of GOD cannot in any incurable way, be injured by any hostile power, because it possesses within itself the power and ability to retire, when any of its holy organs are wounded in a deadly manner, into the unapproachable territory of the Spirit, and there anew to gain a hold and assistance.”—Vol. III., p. 313.

Dr. Baumgarten sees in the silence which S. Paul observes as regards the proclamation of the Gospel during his journey from Jerusalem to Rome, a token of the unutterable grief he felt at the final hardening of Israel, and at the Divine rejection of Jerusalem, a testimony of which is borne to him by every step which brings

him nearer to Rome, so that he never recovered himself, till, meeting with believers from that city on the Appian Way, he "thanked GOD and took courage." His joy then arose from the conviction that now at length the Church was established "in the midst of the world; and hence, the whole existence of the present kingdom of the world, which is unavoidably sinking and falling, is inseparably joined with the Church of CHRIST. The preservation of the Divine element has thereby been secured to the world, although its way should lead through destruction."-Vol. III., p. 317.

We have no doubt that this work will be thought very highly of in many quarters, and it certainly demands high praise for grasp of subject, reverent handling of the sacred text, and a vast amount of a certain kind of erudition. Its chief faults are the carnal interpretation of the prophecies touching the restoration of the Jews, an entire rejection of the traditional explanation of, and additions to, the history of the Acts, and some doctrinal faults, (particularly respecting the constitution of the Church,) which we have not thought it necessary to dilate upon in the notice of a work by a foreign Protestant. We must not omit, what is one of the chief praises of the book, its uncompromising opposition to the views put forward by the German rationalists.

The other work named at the head of this article is of an entirely different purpose from the above. It is an exegetical commentary on the Acts containing, as the Preface informs us, a digest of the labours of English and German scholars, carefully sifted and verified, together with appropriate passages from the expositions of the Fathers. The author, however, does not wish to have his work estimated by a reference to the standard which he has proposed to himself: "the question for the learned reader will be, whether the volume now submitted to his judgment is a step in advance, an improvement, a substantial contribution towards a more comprehensive and perfect work hereafter to be accomplished by some abler hand."-p. 9. Tried by this criterion, we are sorry to say that, in our judgment, the book is, as a whole, a failure. With all its promise it rises but little above commentaries of the Elsley type, chiefly differing from that respectable relic, in containing a few extracts from S. Chrysostom's homilies, with the advantage of more recent topographical investigations; and it is disfigured with instances of doctrinal aberrations, want of judgment, and other errors, which will prevent it from becoming, even temporarily, a standard work. We are the more grieved at this, because from his previous studies we hoped better things from Mr. Humphry; while from his position as examining Chaplain to one of the Bishops, he must have a certain influence with the younger clergy, which we should like to see exercised to a better purpose.

We proceed to give a few instances of the errors we have alluded to above:

II. 9. "loudalav. This word appears to be out of place in a list of foreign countries, especially as it is not a connecting link between the districts mentioned before and after it, Mesopotamia and Cappadocia. It has been proposed to read Ινδίαν οι Λυδίαν. But 'Ιουδαίαν is found in all MSS." It is obvious to remark that there were various dialects spoken in Judæa, which were not understood alike by all the inhabitants, and certainly not by those foreign suλaßeis whose expressions are comprised in the general account given by the Apostle. Compare S. Mark xv. 34, 35. The knowledge of these dialects was necessary for the evangelization of the country; nor is the position in which the name 'Iovdaíav occurs so much out of the way, as to make us doubt the genuineness of the word. The enumeration, beginning with the furthest East, proceeds to Judæa, thence to western countries, and thence to southern, "Cretans and Arabians" being the only people who do not come in geographical order.

II. 47. Remarking on the common derivation of Church, Kirk, &c., from xugiaxov, the author says: "it is remarkable that that word rather than ecclesia should have found its way into the languages of Northern Europe, and especially that it should have become naturalised in our own, this country having had an early and intimate connexion with the Western Church, and none (so far as is known) either directly or indirectly with the Eastern."-P. 26. Now without stopping to notice the etymological difficulty, beyond observing that if the word Kirk "found its way into the languages of Northern Europe," it was not unlikely to obtain currency in England, we would call attention to the assertion that the British Church had no connection with the Eastern. It is unnecessary to remind our readers that even if we give up the supposed journey hither of S. Paul, and the labours of S. Joseph of Arimathæa, the early English Church at the time of S. Austin's mission possessed rites and ceremonies derived distinctly from Eastern sources.

our

III. 16. "It appears better to follow Olshausen in giving here to its not unusual sense, in order to, with a view to; so that the meaning of the verse, which is otherwise somewhat obscure, may be as follows: In order to produce faith in His Name, the lame man has by His Name been made strong; that is to say, faith in Him procured this wholeness for the cripple.' Surely the addition of the words "that is to say" makes the sentence more unintelligible than the English version left it. There is no difficulty in translating this: "And His Name for our faith therein, hath made him strong; yea, the faith which is by Him hath given this soundness to the cripple." Dr. Baumgarten considers ἡ πίστις ἡ δι' αὐτοῦ to refer to the faith wrought in the beggar by our LORD.-Vol. I. p. 84.

Ibid. "The Name at which every knee should bow,' was especially commemorated by the unreformed Church on the 14th of

1 The capitals are not Mr. Humphry's.

January, and still marks a day in our Calendar, (Aug. 7.)” The English Church observed the 7th of August, in honour of the Holy Name of JESUS long before the Reformation; nor was it till the last century, that the Roman Church generally commemorated It on the second Sunday after the Epiphany, or (in the event of Septuagesima Sunday occurring on that day) on the 28th of January. Some monastic bodies kept the festival on the 14th of January, but the Church at large never did so.

IV. 33. xápis. "Popular favour, as appears from II. 47. χάρις. 47... because they suffered none of their number to be in need." In the passage referred to, the phrase is χάριν πρὸς, not χάρις ἐπὶ: and taken in connection with the preceding part of the verse, where mention is made of their "giving witness of the Resurrection of JESUS CHRIST with great power," the word here can mean nothing but "grace," that Divine gift which flowing from the Manhood of CHRIST diffuses itself among His brethren. Compare S. Luke ii. 40. The next verse (34th) must be connected with the 32nd, the 33rd being, as it were, in a parenthesis.

P. 47. Speaking of the Deacons in the early Church, Mr. Humphry says, "They are frequently by the Fathers styled Levites, to distinguish them from the Priests; but the analogy between the Jewish and Christian priesthood is very questionable, as the name and office of Presbyter in the Church, seems to be derived from that of Elder in the Sanhedrim, and it was the temporal rather than the spiritual concerns of the community, which first rendered necessary the appointment of Deacons." It is strange that the allusion to the term Levites did not lead the author to a better understanding of the nature of the Christian ministry. From S. Clement downwards Christian writers have pre-supposed, or dwelt at large upon, the analogy which Mr. Humphry calls "very questionable," which further it is the very object of the Epistle to the Hebrews to maintain, and to doubt which is to suppose the Mosaic institutions to be empty, unmeaning forms; and, not to dilate upon this subject, which it is hardly necessary to enforce upon the readers of the Ecclesiastic at this time, the argument from the name Presbyter or Priest is a very groundless one. Everybody knows that the cause usually assigned for the adoption of the term peo Búrepos instead of iepeùs to designate Christian Priests, is that by the use of the latter term they would almost certainly have been confounded with the ministers of heathendom and of the Jews. While the sacerdotal system of the Hebrews was still in existence, and pagan altars still smoked with the sacrifices of devils, the world would ill have distinguished between the nature of the rival religions, and the attributes of a Christian Priesthood would have had little hope of being understood while viewed in connection with existing superstitions. Hence it arises that early Christian writers often disclaim the possession of an altar and a priesthood, because they knew that these