denies that miracles are the sole proof of a Divine revelation. To sustain his position, he glances at the different arguments and topics which have for ages been adduced as the collateral evidences of revelation, and each of which has a peculiar force to different minds. He accuses Mr. N. of an innovation in theology and reasoning. The displacing of the internal evidence which Mr. R. charges upon Mr. N., according to the former, found its first advocate in modern times in Dr. Chalmers, who subsequently qualified his statements. Then Mr. Ripley quotes a line of Christian writers-the early Apologists for the religion, the founders of the Protestant Church, Barrow, Samuel Clark, Gerard, Dwight, Verplanck, Jacob Abbott, Buckminster, Thacher, Parker, &c.-Here again we put in a word. The passages which Mr. Ripley quotes express the confidence of the writers in the internal recommendation, the convincing truth, of Christianity, and in the collateral, or rather we should say, the consequent evidence of its Divine origin by its effect upon the heart. But we question whether any one of these writers would have maintained, that Christianity would have to all minds sufficient evidence of its containing revealed truths did not miraculous acts accompany it. The fact that it is true assures to it these consequent arguments and recommendations, but the proof that it is revealed truth is not to be confounded with the consequents of its truth. A story which we hear may be true, but the truth of the story is no proof that this or that individual told us of it and gave us good evidence concerning it. Thus Dr. Walker is quoted as asserting, that we need not enforce the miracles upon children or doubters until we have displayed the truth and application of the lessons which the miracles sanctioned. But Dr. Walker does not say, that the miracles need not exist upon the record, or that we could in the end be satisfied without them.

Mr. R. then reverts from human authorities to the Scriptures. These, he says, appeal to other considerations besides miracles. Some Divine messengers performed no miracles, as Samuel, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist. Other Divine messengers, though they performed miracles, did not appeal to them as the sole evidence of their mission, as Jesus Christ and Paul. Again, Mr. Ripley says, "we find express passages in the Scriptures which prove that miracles are not the only evidence of Divine revelation," and "which imply the necessity of various kinds of evidence." We are warned of the plausible clains of deceivers, of the dreams of false prophets. But does Mr. Ripley mean to assert, that miracles are here intended? He

says, "Jesus declares in the most solemn manner, that the power of working miracles was so far from being the only evidence of a Divine commission, that it was not even a proof of a good character. A man, he asserts, may perform miracles in his name, may utter prophecies, may cast out devils, and at the same time be a worthless man, and rejected, at the day of judgement, from the kingdom of heaven." We are amazed at the construction which Mr. Ripley has put upon the Saviour's language. Neither he nor any one of his Apostles, or of the Prophets, has any where asserted that a bad man could perform miracles. The most which he or they assert is, that some men may claim miraculous power, and others may make it appear as if they possessed it. The words of the Saviour to which Mr. R. refers, bear this important preface: "Many will say to me in that day, have we not prophesied in thy name &c." Matt. vii. 22. To claim to be a prophet, and to be a prophet, are very different things.-In conclusion, Mr. R. alleges some bad practical consequences as following from the position that miracles are the sole evidences of a revelation. It would impair the power of preaching,-it would deny the Christian name to those whose convictions are attached to it independently of miracles,it would take the faith from the common mind and give it up to antiquarians and scholars, for the unlearned cannot master the history of the faith. But would Mr. Ripley hesitate to cross the ocean, because he could not construct the charts and instruments nor understand the process of working a ship?-Some literary and historical questions. are discussed at the close of the pamphlet, in which Mr. Ripley accuses Mr. Norton of some important errors as to the Atheism or Pantheism of Spinoza, the Pantheism or Rationalism of Schleiermacher, and the opinions of De Wette.

3. Mr. Norton replies to this pamphlet, which he considers a personal attack. In a few brief preliminary observations he again asserts the essential importance of miraculous evidence for the attestation of a miraculous message, and does justice to the vast amount of internal and collateral evidence, which may aid, but cannot supersede, the former. He then justifies the charge of Atheism which he had brought against Spinoza, and reflects with some severity upon mistranslations, misquotations, and the use of poor authorities adduced by Mr. Ripley in vindication of Spinoza. The charge against Schleiermacher of not believing in the personality of the Deity, nor in personal immortality, and of a disingenuous claim to the Christian name, is substantiated,

and the alleged errors of translation from De Wette are divested of the importance which Mr. Ripley attached to them.

4. Mr. Ripley in a Second Letter complains that Mr. Norton has seen fit to shift the ground of the discussion, to reply only to the statements which concerned his personal reputation, not to the arguments in which the whole public is interested. But since the matters of controversy are now made to be the opinions of Spinoza, Schleiermacher and De Wette, Mr. Ripley is willing to stand at issue with Mr. N. upon the correctness with which either party has stated them. This pamphlet is wholly occupied with an investigation into the opinions of Spinoza, concerning God; Mr. Ripley contending in opposition to Mr. Norton, that Spinoza believed in a God distinct from nature, in his personality and intelligence, though he departed wide from the common modes of thought upon that high theme. We shall not undertake to analyse the abstruse and learned labors of Mr. Ripley to this point. We should be glad to praise him as he deserves for the hard study and the minute earnestness which he displays.

5. In his Third Letter, which is devoted to an examination of the contested opinions of Schleiermacher and De Wette, Mr. Ripley uses the opportunity to give a more complete view of German Theology than has as yet been offered in the controversy. He acknowledges the freedom of those two theologians in the treatment of the letter of our faith, while he claims for them a sincere reverence of its spirit. This single sentiment will furnish our readers with the main purpose of the whole pamphlet. Living in a revolutionary and a skeptical age, these two scholars endeavoured by a modification of the Christian faith to enforce it upon thinking minds. Their speculations are as wild and loose as the freaks of fairies. They seem to proffer Christianity to all men together with the privilege of transfusing into it their own ideas and conceptions. Yet they preserve its spirit and its reverence. Here, to our minds, is the origin of the dark fear which we entertain concerning these rash speculations. Their authors have been educated under Christian influences. Their individual faith was formed, their principles were confirmed by clear and well grounded doctrine and discipline. They may in after life battle with words and with cunning fancies in comparative safety to themselves. But let them teach their "freedom with the letter" to their children and pupils, let them undertake to form a Christian faith upon their new speculations, and then we believe their labor will be futile and hope

less. They will have betrayed the faith, and the faith will forsake the hearts of their pupils.

6. The two Articles from the Princeton Review were republished in their present form by the request of Mr. Norton. The first of them traces the progress of metaphysical inquiries in New England, as founded on the philosophy of Locke, developed by Edwards, and rendered absurd by the subtilty of Emmons, and then rushing from the extreme of a cold and heartless method to utilitarianism. For the last few years thought and opinion have been making an irresistible attack against these two forlorn citadels of human speculation. Yet for this new movement we have had no great philosophical leader among ourselves. We have received the new light by instalments from France, where they have tarried awhile on their way from Germany. The writer then gives a sketch of the successive phases of German Philosophy under its changing masters, Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. These successive systems of misshapen phantasies we should fail in making intelligible to our readers. They involve terms, ideas and illustrations not yet familiar to our minds, much dark light, much abortive conception and feeble parturition. We are told that they have revived much of the old Grecian philosophy; perhaps therefore in his turn that wisest of all the wise men of Greece, who brought philosophy down from the skies, will come again, and when he has come we shall hope to understand it. Madame De Stael first introduced German philosophy into France, but its extravagancies met with little favour there until Professor Cousin in 1816 brought them into notice. After lecturing four years, his exercises having incurred the displeasure of the Government, he was suspended for seven years, when he was restored, and is still diffusing light in the College of the Sorbonne. His views of God, of the human soul, of the Scriptures, and of the principles of morals are alarmingly expounded, and severely criticised. The pamphlet classes Mr. Emerson's Address at Cambridge in the same catalogue of threatening dangers.-The second Article is a more full exposition of the characteristics and tendencies of the present school of philosophy in Germany-that of Hegel, and it concludes with an earnest warning to the students of our land.

7. Mr. Young's Discourse is a decided and uncompromising assertion of the dependence of Christian faith upon the historical tradition of the miraculous events connected with the Saviour's life. Christian institutions are the pillars which support the ark of religious refuge.

The prayer and the Scriptures and the spoken sermon are the indispensable aids for the culture and instruction, yes, even for the permanent existence, of the religious sentiments. Philosophy, now as of old, proffers her assistance; and an honourable place of right belongs to her; but it is not the first place; this belongs to the record of facts, to the transmitted testimony of the Church.

8. Levi Blodgett is a fictitious name. The writer expresses his sentiments with clearness, yet we cannot but think they are superficial and not sufficiently considered. He confines himself to the question, "Do men believe in Christianity solely on the ground of miracles," and he concludes that they do not, on the strength of the following considerations the primary elements and convictions on which religion depends are innate, and need only developement and culture; men need religious teachers not to implant religious sentiments, but to address and elevate them; men obey their teachers, and recognise them as teachers of truth, not through force of the mighty works which they do, but the recommendation of their lessons, the power of their inspiration; Christianity is the most perfect of religions, and Christ performed miracles, as other religious teachers have done; but a miracle cannot prove the truth of a doctrine, on the contrary the truth of the doctrine vouches for the reality of the miracle; finally, no one of the Saviour's miracles, except his resurrection, can be proved without difficulty. In this pamphlet likewise an argument is based upon what appears to us the absurd supposition, that a teacher of iniquity or falsehood may perform miracles. The highest praise we can give to the writer is that of having clearly expressed his opinions.

9. The last pamphlet on our list contains the most explicit and consistent statement which has as yet appeared in opposition to the doctrine of Mr. Norton's Discourse. In calling it consistent, we do not allow it to be true, nor consistent with truth, but merely consistent with itself. It starts with the assumption, "that the understanding has nothing to do with religion,”—that religion "renounces all pretensions to regulate opinion, or to interfere with morals, politics, or any of the practical business of life." And it concludes with the assertion that the Almighty has no mode of addressing or confirming the faith of an individual by a miraculous event; miracles, "even if they were performed before our very eyes, would, as evidence, be totally useless." The leading assumption implies, that it is only when an individual is