it has been mostly of the a priori kind, either assuming that the attributes of God are utterly inconsistent with the doctrines. and narratives of the Bible, or else that we are equally destitute of evidence both in respect to the being and attributes of God and the truth of the Scriptures.

After all the learning and ability, however, that Lardner and Paley have shewn in England in relation to the subject before us, or Schmidt, Kleuker, or Less have exhibited on the Continent of Europe, there has sprung up, within the last generation, a new reason for further effort, such as Mr. Norton has made. Novus seclórum incipit ordo; but in a very different sense, no doubt, from that which the poet meant to convey. Semler, Eckermann, Eichhorn, Paulus, Gabler, Henke, and many others of the like stamp, in Germany, have, in one way and another, assailed the general and settled belief of the Christian church at large, in respect to the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament Scriptures, from quarters that were unexpected, and in a manner which for a while was perplexing and somewhat disheartening to the most strenuous defenders of the older and long established sentiments of Christians in general.

Neology in Germany has indeed had, for a while, apparently a prosperous run and propitious gales. The time was, and for more than one decemium too, when there was not more than one solitary magazine in all Germany, of any great literary pretensions, which maintained both the genuineness and the authenticity of the sacred books. This was the highly respectable Magazin of Storr, Flatt, and others, at Tübingen. Now and then a solitary voice was heard, in defence of the Old Testament or of the New, like that of Jahn, or in some respects of Hug, and of a few writers of smaller treatises. How greatly are those times changed! A predominant party in literature are plainly rising up, at present, who believe and maintain for substance the long established doctrines of the Christian churches in relation to these topics. Another day, I fully believe a better one, is dawning once more on the churches of the Conti

nent.

Widely diffused as German literature is beginning to be in this country and in England, it is unwise, indeed it is impossible, for us to remain idle spectators of the great contest which has been and still is going on. If those who believe in and wish to defend either the genuineness, or the authenticity, or both, of the Old Testament and the New, choose to slumber on their

post, and let neological views have their course without any ef fort to check or regulate them, they may be assured that in the end this country will see a revolution not unlike, in many respects, to that in Germany. There is no small part of our community, after all that we say and may justly say about the prevalence of Christian faith among us, who would be glad of an opportunity fairly to escape from the obligation which the Bible imposes upon their consciences. They have been so educated, however, that they cannot do this by embracing at once, and in their revolting and blasphemous forms, the sentiments of a Paine, a Godwin, a Taylor (of London), or of a much more insignificant class still-an Owen, a Fanny Wright, or an Abner Kneeland. The gulf is too wide, deep, and foul, to be inviting to them. But if some writer like Eichhorn should rise up among us, who to all the charms of genius and taste should add a widely diffused knowledge of classical and sacred learning, and who should attack the genuineness of the sacred writings on grounds of archaeological history and criticism; in a word, if any one should by his talents and learning contribute to make the cause of skepticism respectable among the well informed classes of society; I doubt not that sooner or later we should have a large neological party in our country. I ask ev-. ery sober and enlightened man, who is well acquainted with the state of feeling among men of the world, whether irreligion, or skepticism, if once made respectable by an appearance of learned investigation and great talents, would not be gratefully accepted by many, in order to get rid of the burden that now lies on their consciences, in consequence of their education, or of the influence of the circles of friends in which they now

move.

For my own part, I cannot doubt of this. Of course I cannot doubt the expediency of preparing for the great contest which must ensue, if once the views of Neologists shall become current among us. I would not anticipate these, and diffuse them prematurely. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. It is not good policy, rather, I would say, it is not sound prudence, to fill the ears of the community with reports of danger coming upon the cause of truth, which is new, unexpected, and of a highly threatening character. A general need not proclaim in glowing language to his army, on the eve of contest, the terrible power of the enemy with whom they are to combat, and thus send them into the field half-conquered before the

onset of battle. But on the other hand, he may easily carry his discretion in this respect a great deal too far. If the enemy whom the general is to meet are furnished with a new sort of arms, have acquired some new military tactics which are formidable, or posted themselves on vantage ground unknown to his own army, then he would be rash indeed not to inform his soldiers of all this, and not to instruct them how they are to cope with and overcome these new or formidable means of attack or resistance.

Such, in some respects, I deem the situation of our community to be. The progress of German literature, and of that part of it which is neological, cannot now be prevented. If it is impeded here and there, it will burst out in other places. There are among us literary men enough, and men rather inclined to skepticism, to think and act for themselves in the choice and purchase of books. There are learning and talent enough displayed in many-very many-of the German neological works, to excite curiosity highly, and at least to command literary respect. It is not within the power, then, of the sober, believing, religious part of the community, to put a stop to the reading and diffusion of such works. And this being most plainly the state of the case, I think we have no way left but to prepare for the worst, and to take the vantage ground if we can in the contest, by shewing those who would attack the cause of settled belief in the Scriptures, that neither their attacks are unprovided for by us, nor their weapons or tactics unknown to us.

Let us not dream of a black list, an index expurgatorius, of books, in this free country and Protestant land, from access to which our youth or others are prohibited. Some parents have tried the experiment of shutting up their children from all intercourse with others, in order to keep them from being contaminated. The result has nearly always been, that when they did go out at last into the world, being strangers in point of experience to all its temptations and allurements, they fell an easy prey to them, and were undone for life. So in the case before us; particularly, I would say, in regard to young men who are now in a course of education for the ministry. If we keep them, either in Seminaries or under private tuition, from all acquaintance with what neology has done or is now doing in respect to the Scriptures either of the Old Testament or the New, when they go out into the world they will meet with those who have drunk in the new doctrines. They will be attacked by them;

attacked with the learning and skill which Eichhorn and others of the like cast have furnished, ready to their hand; and they will, from the necessity of the case, be shocked and confounded by the assault, if not overthrown. Besides this too, many sensible inquirers among the laity, who have heard conversation. on topics involved in such a controversy, or read something concerning them, will be naturally led to inquire of their pastor what all this means. If he is ignorant of it, or cannot in any becoming and satisfactory manner solve their doubts or quiet their apprehensions, then their difficulties will be increased, and in all probability will end in a state of skepticism.

Semper paratus, then, should be the maxim of the young theologian, at a time like this. And if this be so, then I would ask, whether there is any way so good, for those who direct the studies of young men that are candidates for the ministry, as prudently and cautiously to make known to them the substance of neological doctrine, whether critical or theological, and instruct them how to answer the objections which it raises. What! Shall we spend weeks and months in combating the infidels and skeptics of early ages or of past generations; must Hume and Collins and Shaftsbury and Tolland and Tindal be met and refuted, at all points and with great care, although they have mostly argued on grounds that are merely a priori, and shall the far more powerful and subtle skeptics of the present day, whose appeal is professedly to antiquity and criticism, be passed by in silence, or studiously excluded from the circle of our consideration? Believe this who may, I cannot accede to it. Every age has its own peculiarities, its own dangers, its own corruptions, and its own weapons of assault upon the Scriptures. It is not meet that we should live so much out of the age to which we belong, and be conversant only with times that are forever gone by.

I have made these remarks in order to show, that the work of Mr. Norton is not in any measure to be deemed superfluous, because we have the works of Lardner, Paley, and others of a similar character in English, or the works of Schmidt, Less, Kleuker, etc., in German and Latin. Mr. Norton has, in the Preface to his work, given us reasons why he entered de novo upon the investigations which led to it-reasons which I think ought to satisfy every one who is acquainted with the present state of sacred criticism and literature.

In order that the readers of this Periodical may obtain some

definite view of the positions which have been taken by leading Neologists in respect to the genuineness of the Gospels, it is proper that some extracts from Eichhorn's Introduction to the New Testament should here be presented. Complaint cannot be made that this class of writers are unfairly dealt with in our statements respecting them, when they are left to speak for themselves. I cannot do better here, than to introduce an extract from Mr. Norton's introductory Statement of the Case, viz. of the matter in dispute, or the subject which he has undertaken to discuss. The passages with double commas at the beginning and end are translations by him from Eichhorn; the remainder consists of his own remarks, intermixed for the sake of illustration and in order to secure accuracy of statement.

"Justin Martyr," says Eichhorn," who was born A. D. 89, and died A. D. 163, a Samaritan, a native of Flavia Neapolis, early became converted from a heathen philosopher to a zealous Christian, and was one of the earliest Christian writers. He nowhere quotes the life and sayings of Jesus according to our present four Gospels, which he was not acquainted with. This is a very important circumstance in regard to the history of the Gospels; as he had devoted many years to travel, and resided a long time in Italy and Asia Minor."

On the whole, it is concluded by Eichhorn and others, that our four Gospels, in their present form, were not in use, and were not known, till the end of the second century. Previously to that time, it is supposed, that other gospels were in circulation, allied to those which we possess, but not the same. "If we will not," says Eichhorn, "be influenced by mere assertions and unsupported tradition, but by the only sure evidence of history, we must conclude that before our present Gospels, other decidedly different gospels were in circulation, and were used during the first two centuries in the instruction of Christians." Eichhorn, however, does not deny that the canonical Gospels are, in a certain sense, the works of the authors to whom they have been ascribed. He expressly defends the genuineness of that of John; and with regard to the three others, he says: "According to the uniform tradition of the Church, the first three Gospels proceeded from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This tradition is not to be called in question, unless there are strong reasons against it; and where are such reasons to be found?" He contends, however, that the Gospels have been grossly corrupted. His statements respecting this subject are connected with his account of the supposed common origin of the first three of our present Gospels, and of the gospels which he believes to have been in use before those we now possess. This account is as follows: