of others as well as the death of Christ? Besides, the truth of Christ's doctrines had been already proved by His miracles. And, again, this method of solution will not account for the agonies which He is said to have endured when there were none to witness them. Here the reader will perceive that within a few lines the dean has compressed abundant materials for much thought and reflection. In the same way, and in the space of three pages, he suggests the answers to the other objections; namely, the injustice of making an innocent person suffer for the guilty; or, that which represents the atonement as necessary to induce God to lay aside His wrath, and to become merciful in consequence of the death of Christ. No; replies the dean, "the atonement is not the cause but the effect and consequence of God's love to man; the death of Christ did not create mercy, but was the means of displaying mercy." And, lastly, he considers the objection that an atonement interferes with the freeness of divine mercy; and proves, in few words, this is not the case. The doctrine of Scripture is, that sinners are saved by grace, but redeemed by the blood of Christ. The pardon of our sins was procured by the sufferings and death of Christ, but is conferred as a free gift upon every sinner that believeth in Jesus. We are "justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." (Rom. iii. 24, 25.)

This little work is, in short, a manual of the whole controversy. It will suggest to the clergy the proper manner of dealing with it; and it will suggest to the thoughtful inquirer the right answer to all the greater difficulties, if not to every quibble, which the German school are too ready to suggest.

3. Our third pamphlet professes to take a moderate view. There is much to be said on both sides. "The views of Mr. Maurice are mistaken;" but still "his system embraces elements of truth." And there is an important department of the question to which justice has been done by neither party." These sentences occur on the first half page, where we also meet with the following:-"Some years since, it was affirmed by a popular and pious church historian (and the astounding assertion obtained extensively a credence as astonishing) that the church of Christ had been destitute of the doctrine of justification by faith for the greater part of the entire fifteen centuries that preceded Luther and the reformation." So many dogmatic statements, and so much virtuous indignation, come upon us rather abruptly on the first page of a tract, which the writer tells us is meant to " suggest considerationes modestæ et pacifica." Thomas Scott, the venerable commentator, is reported to have said that, although a Calvinist himself, he liked a man's Calvinism to come upon him by degrees. We have the

same feeling with regard to virtuous indignation. It should be poured out upon us on the last page; not upon the first; although it is true it might have evaporated if kept back so long, and so never have been poured out at all. Did our author ever read father Paul's history of the council of Trent? The holy fathers were probably as well acquainted with patristic literature as himself, and with the history of church matters too, for the fifteen centuries he speaks of. Now when Luther's heresy came before them, the holy fathers, we are told, looked at one another in sore perplexity. Was there any such doctrine as justification by faith, in any sense of those words? or was it more than a barbarous jargon hatched in the teeming brain of the rebellious heretic? Well, upon the whole, it was admitted, after long discussion, that there must be some such doctrine, whatever it might mean; for had not St. Paul, in his epistle to the Galatians, made mention of it, and, in fact, made use of those very words? But what was the doctrine? Here again the holy fathers were in dire perplexity. Ages had passed, they said, and it had been scarcely heard of in the church. Ages had passed, and there had either been no discussions on the subject, or they were so few, obscure, and dubious, that they candidly acknowledged they knew very little about them. At length it was made out to their satisfaction that there were at least nine different ways, or more, (we have not his folio at hand, and quote father Paul from recollection,) in which the doctrine might be understood, and from these they had to make their choice. Had these wise divines been content to take the guidance of St. Paul, it seems to us very probable that they would have decided aright; they preferred to grope among the fathers, and so decided wrong. The writer of this pamphlet has followed their example, and he shares their fate; both he and they stumbling among the dark mountains of what he is pleased to call catholic theology. There is nothing, then, so very "astounding," it seems, in the statement of the popular and pious historian. The church of Christ had really been destitute, or all but destitute, of the doctrine of justification by faith for the greater part of the fifteen centuries which preceded Luther and the reformation.

What follows in this treatise is to us of little importance. "Modern orthodoxy, we are told, in connection with the doctrine of our Lord's atonement, embraces the most opposite and conflicting views within its limits; and all of them, at the same time, views of the atonement entirely unknown to catholic antiquity." Now, in the first place, we must take leave to deny the truth of this sweeping statement; and, in the second, we entirely decline to defer to catholic antiquity on points of Christian doctrine. We prefer what our author terms "the shibboleth of modern orthodoxy," or "the theology which

Milner (the historian) designates as perfectly scriptural." It signifies little to us what "the fathers tell us with one voice as to the immediate object of the sacrifice of Christ;" for One is our Master, even Christ, and He nowhere tells us we are to seek for the real meaning of His own instructions in the writings of the fathers. We have given our reasons repeatedly for refusing to bow down to their authority in matters doctrinal; in our number for February, 1860, page 83-6, as well as in other places, and we need not resume the subject.

It is only necessary to add this further remark: it is loosely or carelessly asserted by one party in our church, and with equal carelessness admitted by another, that we are somehow bound to the theology of the first four general councils, and that this implies a recognition of patristic authority in matters of doctrine. The fact is simply this; that when the court of High Commission was formed under queen Elizabeth, it was of course necessary to define its powers, and to show the limits within which it was restrained. And with this view, and this alone, it was determined that nothing should be held or accounted heresy which had not been so deemed by one of the first four general councils. This, in fact, was a mere "statute of limitations," to prevent the exercise of what would otherwise have been an intolerable tyranny. The councils are appealed to, not as doctrinal authorities, but simply as historical witnesses. How else, indeed, can they be recognized by a church which solemnly maintains in her article that "general councils have erred, and may err again, even in things pertaining unto God; inasmuch as they are composed of fallible men, all of whom are not governed by the Spirit and Word of God"? Art. 21.

NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.

Idealism considered. By Rev. W. Gresley, Prebendary of Lichfield, &c. London: Joseph Masters, 1860.-We have unhappily been obliged but too frequently to introduce the name of Mr. Gresley to our readers, in pointing out what we considered the serious errors of a system of which he has been one of the ablest exponents. Our satisfaction is great in proportion, now that for once we can meet with cordiality on common ground. This pamphlet is a popular yet searching exposition of the follies into which the Idealists have fallen. It is written chiefly with reference to the volume of "Essays and Reviews," lately published; and he takes a standing point not far remote from that which we ourselves have occupied : "While these pages are

passing through the press, I have seen an article on Dr. Temple's Essay in the Christian Observer for September, in which I am happy to find several points of coincidence with what I have myself written. It is indeed time that all those who believe in God's revealed word, should join together and contend earnestly for the faith which is assailed." Mr. Gresley concludes a very solemn remonstrance with a stroke of irony; he supposes a paper of questions put forth by the vice-principal of Lampeter College to his candidates for orders; or the same questions might be imagined as proposed by the head master of Rugby to his sixth-form boys: they embody some of the principles and doctrines which are taught in the volume under consideration. Or, we will add, they may supply some useful hints to the archdeacons and episcopal chaplains who congratulated Mr. Maurice on his preferment to the Vere-street Chapel, at the next ordinations. We venture to copy the examination paper.

"Questions by an Ideological Examiner.

"1. Give reasons for supposing that the account contained in the Bible of the creation of Adam and Eve, and the descent of the human race from them, is not to be considered as an undoubted historical fact, but 'the concrete expression of a great moral truth;' that 'the idea of creation is to be rejected,' and it is rather to be believed that, in point of fact, mankind have in all probability been developed gradually out of mushrooms.

"2. Explain why the declaration of God contained in Gen. vi., 'Behold I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life,'-and in Gen. vii. 21, And all flesh died. . . in whose nostrils was the breath of life. And Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark '— is contrary to fact, and that the flood did not extend beyond the primæval region of North Asia.

"3. Explain the process of reasoning by which it is proved, ideologically, that when we read in Holy Scripture that God did tempt Abraham, and bade him offer his son for a burnt-offering, what is really meant is, that the fierce ritual of Syria, with the awe of a divine voice,' urged him to do so, and his faith consisted in deciding not to follow the suggestion.

"4. State your views of the Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, and explain why it is probable that the destroyer whom God sent to slay the first-born of the Egyptians, was a horde of Bedouins.

"5. State your reasons for thinking that it is impossible, in the nature of things, that miracles can possibly take place; and consequently, that the creation of the world, the incarnation, the deeds said by eye-witnesses to have been performed by our Lord Jesus Christ, His healing the sick, cleansing the leper, opening the eyes of the blind, feeding the multitude, and lastly, His resurrection from the dead, are not deserving of credit.

"6. If miracles are not to be believed, explain how that large portion of Holy Scripture which contains the account of miracles having been performed, being false, can be said 'to be given by inspiration of God, and to be profitable for instruction.'

"7. Explain why it may be true that the decision of the council

of Nicæa was 'the greatest misfortune which ever befell the Christian world; and that it would have been much better to have left things alone, and allowed men to believe Christ to have been God or man, and to have worshipped Him or not, as they chose.

"8. Explain the theory on which you ground the notion that persons disbelieving the facts of Holy Scripture, are nevertheless very proper persons to be ordained as bishops, priests, and deacons of the church of England.

"9. Interpret the following clauses in the questions asked by the bishop in the ordaining of priests :-Are you determined out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge,''to drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's word ?'

"10. Do you consider it lawful for individuals to act as it is supposed by ideologists that the writers of Holy Scripture have done,that is, to state as certain facts, for instance, the creation of man, the deluge, the miracles of our Blessed Lord, the resurrection, when they believe that such events have not really taken place ?"

Paul the Pope, and Paul the Friar: a Story of an Interdict. By T. Adolphus Trollope. London: Chapman and Hall. 1861.-What Mr.Trollope calls a story deserves the higher name of a history. The history, too, of an important epoch in the ecclesiastical affairs of Italy at the beginning of the seventeenth century. There has been in England for fifty years a preposterous sentiment amongst educated people, of false charity towards the church of Rome. It has been, we might say, nothing less than the drivellings of a national idiotism in many quarters. It is too much to ask those who are the subject of it to study the real character of Rome in her canons and official edicts. Perhaps they may condescend to make themselves better acquainted with it through the medium of a story, and no story can be better fitted for the purpose than Paul the Pope, and Paul the Friar. However, one hope remains: Englishmen alone, of all the nations upon the earth, refuse to see the hateful character of the hideous apostasy. Her own children have learned first to distrust, and now to abhor, their unnatural parent, and the crisis is coming. "The wind," as Mr. Trollope expresses it, "of the coming shock may already be felt. Or would not the metaphor more correctly represent the fact, if it were said, the crash is already in our ears; and its first consequences are such as to render its final issue no longer doubtful to any man."

Egypt in its Biblical Relations and Moral Aspect. By J. Foulkes Jones, B.A. London: Smith, Elder, and Co. 1860.-A book of travels in Egypt ought to be replete with instruction; it ought to supply to the unlearned reader the place of comments on the Pentateuch, and elaborate disquisitions on the historical parts of the Old Testament; and, to a great extent, this volume fulfils these conditions. It is written with a vigorous pen, by an author who keeps in view, without obtruding it, the opportunity presented by almost every scene in Egypt, of throwing some light on Scripture. As a book of travels, overloaded as we are with such productions, it is not devoid of interest; as confirming the truth of Scripture on a hundred points without the labour of an argument, it deserves higher praise. It ful