The author's last fancy, the "dark cloud," is most absurd of all. It is in direct opposition to the explicit declaration of the three evangelists, who designate it as a bright cloud; and also to what is supposed by our ablest and most evangelical commentators to have been designed by it. Let the candid reader compare his terrific description of "a dark cloud suddenly descending upon the mountain's head, enwrapping and overshadowing" the apostles, and of a voice, "amid the flash of lightnings, and the roar of thunders," &c., with the following exegetical interpretation of the occurrence by that profound Biblical scholar and eminent divine, Bishop Porteus, and he will perceive the justness of the remark just made. "The CLOUD," says Bishop Porteus, "is the well-known token of the divine presence under the law. Many instances of it occur in the Old Testament, but more particularly at the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. On the mountain where our Saviour was transfigured a new law was declared to have taken place; and, therefore, God again appeared in a cloud. But there is one remarkable difference between these manifestations of the divine presence. On Mount Sinai the cloud was dark and thick; ‘and there were thunders, and lightnings, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud, and all the people that were in the camp trembled.' At the transfiguration, on the contrary, the cloud was bright; the whole scene was luminous and transporting, and nothing was heard but the mild paternal voice of the Almighty, expressing his delight in his beloved Son. These striking differences, and the two appearances, evidently point out the different tempers of the two dispensations, of which the former, from its severity, was more calculated to excite terror; the latter, from its gentleness, to inspire love."-Port.

Ser.,
p. 232.

We have extended our strictures on this point, not because it is more particularly obnoxious to criticism than some other portions of the work, but for the purpose of exhibiting in one view the objection to which it is liable as a whole, namely, the concealment of anti-evangelical principles under the attractive covering of a popular and fascinating style. As this is a production of some magnitude,

ever ingenuity may be in this pretended elucidation, every unprejudiced person must see that it can never be brought to accord with the letter and concomi tant circumstances of this remarkable case."

and designed to be a standard work for both professional and general readers,* it is a matter of no small importance that they should be guarded against incautiously imbibing any insidious poison it may contain.t

The doctrinal errors inculcated in this work are too palpable and obvious to mislead the intelligent reader. Some of the exploded dogmas of popery, particularly the supremacy of St. Peter, and its cognate absurdities, are boldly asserted and elaborately vindicated by the author. Indeed, when we first read a few paragraphs in the work, upon which we incidentally opened, touching this topic, we were in doubt whether the writer might not be a Jesuit in disguise. But other parts of it soon convinced us that this was impossible.

The second edition, now in circulation, is stereotyped.

The following is the author's view of the miracle of the cloven tongues," &c., recorded in the second chapter of the Acts::

"My own opinion of the nature of this whole phenomenon is," he says, "that of Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Paulus, and Kuinoel,-that a tremendous tempest actually descended at the time, bringing down clouds highly charged with electricity, which was not discharged in the usual mode, by thunder and lightning, but quietly streamed from the air to the earth, and wherever it passed from the air upon any tolerable conductor, it made itself manifest in the darkness occasioned by the thick clouds, in the form of those pencils of rays, with which every one is familiar who has seen electrical experiments in a dark room; and which are well described by the expression, 'cloven tongues of fire.' The temple itself being covered and spiked with gold, the best of all conductors, would quietly draw off a vast quantity of electricity, which, passing through the building, would thus manifest itself on those within the chambers of the temple, if we may suppose the apostles to have been there assembled."

We will not detain the reader to present the arguments urged in support of this opinion, nor yet to show their futility, as our only purpose in making this extract is to exhibit a peculiar characteristic of the work to which we have adverted. The writer need not to have taken the trouble to inform his readers of his ready acquiescence in the opinions of the authors he names. This is sufficiently evident, not only in this, but in other particulars, without his mentioning it. It has been well said, by a judicious critic, in regard to Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, which has lately been recommended to public notice in a translation, with notes, by Marsh, for some time resident at Leipsic, that it "exhibits great learning and deep research, but doubts and skepticisms are occasionally introduced, which capriciously altering the text or the sense, undermine the authority of Scripture, and lessen the respect which should be paid to the inspired writings."-Dr. Blake.

Yet he has made concessions and assumed positions which show him to be at least a very inconsistent Protestant. Although his work is entitled, "The Lives of the Apostles of Jesus Christ," yet more than two hundred and forty pages of it have the name of Peter in the running title. This apostle occupied, in the estimation of the author, such a prominent position in the primitive Christian church, that little besides his life and labors seemed necessary to complete its history.

He was its "foundation," the "rock" on which it was built; the "chief apostle,” sustaining a "perfectly commanding pre-eminence;" and the honored bearer of its sacred "keys." Such are the views set forth by our author, and inculcated in every possible form throughout his work.

That we may not be suspected of stating the case in too strong terms, we beg to refer the reader to the work itself, as evidence of the justness of the language here employed. The author, as his object seems to be to convince the reader of Peter's absolute preeminence before he dismisses him, arranges his course with the skill of a master; and in the very cominencement makes an effort to dislodge from the mind, before it is at all apprised of his object, every impression that the distinction which was given to Peter among the apostles might be accounted for on the ground of seniority, by a labored argument to show that he was younger than his brother Andrew. From this preliminary, the design of which the reader scarcely perceives at first, we are carried forward, step by step, until, to cap the climax, we are presented with the papal dogma of Peter's absolute supremacy without disguise. Take the following extracts :

"To draw from them the distinct acknowledgment of their belief in him, Jesus at last plainly asked his disciples, 'But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter, in his usual character as spokesman, replied for the whole band, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus, recognizing in this prompt answer the fiery and devoted spirit that would follow the great work of redemption through life, and at last to death, replied to the zealous speaker in terms of marked and exalted honor, prophesying at the same time the high part which he would act in spreading and strengthening the kingdom of his Master: Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art a ROCK; and on this ROCK I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys

6

of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' In such high terms was the chief apostle distinguished, and thus did his Master peculiarly commission him above the rest, for the high office to which all the energies of his remaining life were to be devoted."-P. 70.

In vindication of this high ground the author employs the following language in the form of a note :—

"Thou art a rock,' &c. This is the just translation of Peter's name, and the force of the declaration is best understood hy this rendering. As it stands in the original, it is, 'Thou art Пérpos, (Petros, 'a rock,') and on this Пérpa (Petra, 'a rock') I will build my church;'a play on the words so palpable, that great injustice is done to its force by a common, tame, unexplained translation. The variation of the words in the Greek, from the masculine to the feminine termination, makes no difference in the expression. In the Greek Testament the feminine, TÉTрa, (petra,) is the only form of the word used as the common noun for 'rock; but the masculine, πérpos, (petros,) is used in the most finished classic writers of the ancient Greek, of the Ionic, Doric, and Attic, as Homer, Herodotus, Pindar, Xenophon, and, in the later order of writers, Diodorus Siculus. H. Stephens gives the masculine form as the primitive, but Schneider derives it from the feminine.

"This simple and natural construction has, however, seemed to many of ancient and modern times to be so replete with difficulties, and so irreconcilable with their notions of the character of Peter, and with the extent of the honor implied in the words, that they have sought other modes of interpretation. The great majority of the fathers consider the words as referring primarily to Peter, though this opinion is variously qualified, in different passages, by such remarks, as that it was upon Peter's faith, rather than upon Peter himself, that the church was founded;'-a nicety that may well be characterized as 'a distinction without a difference;' for who supposes that the church could be said to be founded upon Peter, in any more personal sense, than that his zeal, faith, devotion, and energy, on this occasion manifested, should be the active means of establishing, extending, and governing the church of that Lord whom he had declared to be the Christ?”—P. 72.

The sense in which the expression is understood to apply to Peter's faith, the author evidently does not correctly apprehend, as we might clearly show, would our prescribed limits permit. But this is the less necessary, as he rests the argument upon a verbal construction of the sentence. He thus proceeds :

"The principles of syntax require that the words, this rock,' should refer to some substantive already expressed; and since there is no such abstract noun in the passage as faith,' but, on the contrary, the name of Peter is just before mentioned with a palpable allusion to the paronomasia of Petros and Petra, every rule of grammar and common

sense makes it necessary to infer that Jesus applied the words, this rock,' to Peter."

Having thus unequivocally asserted the doctrine, that the Saviour applied the words, "this rock," to Peter; and, by consequence, that it was upon Peter, the apostle, that he declared he would build his church, our author carries the sentiment throughout his work, everywhere paying to him the honors due to an acknowledged head-the "foundation" and "divinely instituted” ruler "of the church."

In commenting upon Acts v, 15, he uses this strong language:"The shadow of Peter.' This is one of a vast number of passages which show the high and perfectly commanding pre-eminence of this apostolic chief. The people evidently considered Peter as concentrating all the divine and miraculous power in his own person, and had no idea at all of obtaining benefit from any thing that the minor apostles could do. In him, alone, they saw the manifestations of divine power and authority; he spoke, and preached, and healed, and judged, and doomed, while the rest had nothing to do but assent and aid. Peter, then, was THE great pastor of the church; and it is every way desirable that over-zealous Protestants would find some better reason for opposing so palpable a fact, than simply that Papists support it. A Protestant, zealous against the assumptions of the Church of Rome, yet honest and honorable in that opposition, should scorn and 'cast off the base and vain support that so many seek in the denial of the divinely appointed pre-eminence of the noble Peter,-a pre-eminence, to my eye, palpably marked in almost every passage of the gospels and of the Acts where the apostles are mentioned. The spirit which thus perverts the obvious meaning of particular passages in the general tenor of the whole New Testament, for the sake of carrying a point against the Romanists, is not the original spirit of the great reformers, who fought the first and best battles against papal supremacy. They knew better, and had better aids. It is a more modern spirit, springing from an ignorance of the true grounds of the great Protestant defense; nor till this offspring of ignorance is displaced by the spirit of truth, will the Protestant controversy go on as the first reformers so triumphantly began it. And if, of necessity, the pope's supremacy over all Christian churches follows from Peter's superiority over the other apostles, even such an inference is to be preferred before the sacrifice of a common-sense rule of interpretation."-P. 169.

We had marked for consideration a number of other passages in the volume before us, in which the same strain of eulogy upon the primacy of St. Peter, by special appointment of Christ, is indulged in by the author. Indeed, he suffers no instance, in which this apostle is brought into notice, to pass without improving it to reiterate this popish dogma in terms which signify that he deems the