question, "What is the meaning of the Deacon's declaration that he unfeignedly believes in the Canonical Scriptures?" Before we quote his answer, let us remark that Dr. Lushington puts in "the deacon's" mouth a declaration, which no well-instructed deacon ever makes. A deacon who said that he "believed in the Canonical Scriptures," would deserve to be plucked there and then, and remanded to the first article of Pearson on the Creed, to improve both his theology and his English. But let us proceed with the answer of the learned judge. He evidently wrote it with a conviction of his theological shortcomings, for both the language and logic are shaky all over. We shall not quote the answer in extenso; the gist of it is contained in the following quotation :

"I think that the declaration, 'I do believe,' must be considered with reference to the subject-matter, and that is the whole Bible, the Old and New Testament. The great number of these books; the extreme antiquity of some; that our Scriptures must necessarily consist of copies and translations; that they embrace almost every possible variety of subject, parts being all-important to the salvation of mankind, and parts being historical and of a less sacred character; certainly not without some element of allegory and figure-all these circumstances, I say, must be borne in mind when the extent of the obligation imposed by the words, 'I do believe,' has to be determined."

Good reader! pause, and draw your breath, ere you plunge into another of Dr. Lushington's tangled sentences; and while you are resting yourself, look back at the sentence through which you have passed, and admire the elegance of diction which characterizes the number of the canonical books as a "circumstance." But to proceed.

"Influenced by these views," continues the learned judge. What views? The preceding sentence certainly enumerates a considerable number of facts; but facts are not views-at all events out of the Court of Arches. "Influenced by these views, I, for purpose of this cause, must hold that the generality of this expression, 'I do believe,' must be modified by the subject-matter; that there must be a bona fide belief that the Holy Scriptures contain everything necessary to salvation, and that to that extent they have the direct sanction of the ALMIGHTY."

the

Thus, Holy Scripture has "the direct sanction of the ALMIGHTY," only in so far as it contains "everything necessary to salvation." How much does that include? Subtract from the Bible everything which is not, as far as we can see, absolutely necessary to salvation, and the residuum will be very small indeed. But let Dr. Lushington be his own commentator. "I hold," he says, "that in the phrases, 'God's Word written,' and 'the Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation,' is neces

sarily implied the doctrine that in all matters necessary for salvation, the Holy Scriptures emanated from the extraordinary and preternatural interposition of the ALMIGHTY-the special mode and limit unknown to man.' Does Dr. Lushington mean to say that in all matters not necessary for salvation, Holy Scripture did not emanate from God's extraordinary inspiration? That certainly seems to be the only meaning of which his language is capable. But to draw any logical conclusions from Dr. Lushington's premises, would very often be no easy matter.

Dr. Lushington "thinks it is open for the clergy to maintain that any book in the Bible is the work of another author than him whose name it bears, provided that they conform to the Sixth Article, by admitting that the book is an inspired writing and canonical."

Here is a palmary instance of that strange confusion of ideas, that singular absence of the logical faculty which usually marks Dr. Lushington's judicial sentences. The plain English of the above sentence is this: "I think it open for the clergy to maintain that any book in the Bible is a forgery, provided they admit that it was inspired by Him Who cannot lie that is to say, is not a forgery." For example, the author of the Apocalypse states in most explicit language that he is John who was banished to "the isle that is called Patmos ;" and yet Dr. Lushington tells the clergy that they may believe the author of the Apocalypse to have been S. Peter or S. Paul, or in fact any body they please, provided they believe the book to be canonical and inspired. And so when the author of one of the Epistles writes,-"I, Simon Peter, a servant and an Apostle of JESUS CHRIST," &c., the clergy are at liberty to attribute the authorship of the Epistle to any one but Peter the Apostle. And so of the other Epistles. They may be all forgeries, and yet be all inspired; and "it is open for the clergy to maintain" this paradox. Happily, it is also open for them to maintain that the Judge who tells them so has no right to measure other intellects by his own. Surely there is only one man in England from whose pen these views could have emanated.

Again, what can be more impotent than the attempt at reasoning displayed in the following passage?—

"The positions maintained by Dr. Williams with regard to Messianic prophecy are not consonant with the doctrine of the Church, as usually promulgated by high Authority. The doctrine usually maintained is, that the prophecies are beyond doubt Messianic; not that every prophecy is Messianic, not that there are not particular portions of doubtful application, with respect to which criticism may be justly used; but the doctrine is, that there is ample and incontestable proof that an adequate portion of the prophecies is Messianic; that the great events of our LORD appearing on earth, and many of the other facts connected

with the appearance, are foretold by the prophets through the aid of the HOLY SPIRIT. Such is the doctrine recognized; and it is further esteemed to be one of the fundamental proofs of the truth of the faith of the Church.

"But this is not the question which the law directs me to consider. The true question is-Has Dr. Williams in these passages contravened of the Articles of Religion or the Liturgy as cited?

"Now admitting that Dr. Williams, in the extracts just read, has denied Messianic prophecy, I cannot find in the Articles of Religion quoted, viz., the Sixth and Seventh, any direct mention of Messianic prophecy, or undoubted reference to it... The Court then cannot say that the Articles have been infringed in this particular."

It is quite true that none of the Articles specifies any doctrine as Messianic; but if "to declare the Bible to be an expression of devout reason to be the written voice of the congregation, is a violation of the VIth and VIIth Articles of Religion," and if, as Dr. Lushington insists, the Articles affirm the Divine supernatural inspiration of the Bible, then the Articles, by implication and inevitable inference, assert the Messianic character of many of the prophecies, e.g., Isa. liii., as expounded by Philip to the Eunuch. If the Articles assert the Divine inspiration of that narrative, the Articles in that case assert Isa. liii. to be a Messianic prediction. In fact, Dr. Lushington tells us, that a clergyman may positively deny a fundamental Article of Faith, and yet go unpunished because he has not contradicted any of the XXXIX. Articles !

On page 81 of Dr. Williams' Essay occurs the following passage:

"The Divine attributes are consubstantial with the Divine Essence. He who abides in love abides in GOD, and GOD in him. Thus the incarnation becomes with our author as purely spiritual as it was with S. Paul. The Son of David by birth is the Son of GOD by the Spirit of holiness. What is flesh is born of flesh, and what is spirit is born of spirit."

This passage was alleged by the prosecution to be a denial of the second Article of Religion, and a maintaining that the Son of GOD did not take upon Himself man's nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. There is undoubtedly an elaborate ambiguity in the Essayist's language; but that man must be sadly deficient in logical penetration, who does not perceive that Dr. Williams, in the passage quoted, denies the doctrine of the Incarnation. "The Divine attributes are consubstantial with the Divine Essence;" love is a Divine attribute; therefore he who loves is consubstantial with GOD. In this sense CHRIST is consubstantial with the FATHER; but so is every good man. Thus "the Incarnation becomes purely spiritual;" that is, the Divine attributes become incarnate, take up their abode, in all good men. Accordingly, CHRIST was, first, the Son of David; and then, in so far as He was holy, or a partaker

seems

of the Divine attributes, he was the Son of GOD. To attribute to S. Paul this miserable travesty of the faith of Christians is to confess oneself singularly foolish or excessively dishonest, and Dr. Williams is not foolish. But to the Judge of the Court of Arches it " not an unfair quotation, or rather expression of the substance of what S. Paul wrote." Well, all we can say is that we regret sincerely that his god-parents did not take more pains to teach Dr. Lushington his Catechism, for it is not creditable to have a Judge presiding in an Ecclesiastical Court who is profoundly ignorant of what is meant by the doctrine of the Incarnation. Well might Dr. Lushington confess his "want of theological knowledge." The only pity is that he did not find it out in time to save Archdeacon Denison, Mr. Liddell, and Mr. Poole from much unnecessary annoyance, and his own character from shipwreck.

On the whole, Dr. Lushington's judgment is one of the most, if not the most inconsistent and meaningless that ever emanated from an English Court of Justice. It looks like a lame attempt to please Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics; and Dr. Lushington will, in the end, probably find himself in the condition of "the old man and his ass," and in his attempt to please every body, he will please nobody, and lose his character into the bargain.

MRS. OLIPHANT'S LIFE OF IRVING.

Life of Edward Irving. By Mrs. OLIPHANT. London: Hurst and Blackett.

WHATEVER may be the theological prepossessions with which this book is taken up, we should not envy the man who could read it with a heart unstirred. It is ably written, with full appreciation of the high character of the man, and without any avowal of adherence to the peculiarities of his religious system. There is consequently no effort to conceal the faults of character which may from time to time appear. It discloses to us in a connected form the narrative of a life known in some of its wilder and more exciting phenomena to many, but probably in its real developement and continuity of incident known but to few.

The character of Irving is certainly remarkable for the earnestness with which he appreciated the powers of the supernatural, and the self-control which he habitually exercised in the midst of a supernatural faith. He was to the last a disciple. The high gifts which he felt himself to have received from heaven never

seemed to make him lose his consciousness of dependence upon the Giver. Most enthusiasts would have heaven dependent upon themselves: not so Irving. He was always anxious to prepare the way for the coming of the LORD, and to remain the servant of the Most High.

This consciousness of the supernatural origin and power of all apostolical ministry is what he has so wonderfully succeeded in impressing upon the people who came under his influence. In order to estimate his character we must think of the time in which he lived. He is in many respects a very apt representative of that special season of religious earnestness. Most persons who remember the leading characters of the religious world of those days must be conscious of the reality which was then felt to belong to the Divine word. There was a joyousness then in the sense of communion with GOD which is not common amongst us now. Perhaps that joyousness as of youth belonged to the first days of a religious movement, and could not be expected to pervade its later and more systematic operations. The Bible scarcely ever out of the hands of many-brought home promises and encouragements in the strength of which there could be no fear of the world. Often indeed the critical sense of the sacred volume might be very much misconceived: those mistakes were of little detriment to its spiritual influence. The voice of GOD was felt as a reality on which all could trust. The language of daily life assumed a Biblical phraseology: that phraseology was not yet degenerated into cant. Probably it is from the sad though natural misuse of the language of Scripture, that the religious minds of our day are so much on their guard respecting it. We have gained in many respects. Let us not by reason of those gains forget the blessedness, as we said before, the youthful joyousness of those days of hallowed intercourse when God made Himself very specially manifest through His written word.

Dogma was at that time comparatively little known. The fellowship of the believer with GOD-the communion of mind with mind in love—was the great occupation of all thoughts. The investigation of statements respecting GOD belonged to a later time. We must be careful that the orthodoxy which is our privilege, resulting as it assuredly does from the earlier awakening of the consciousness of Divine fellowship, does not put us farther away from Him with whom the good men of that day held so close and real a communion, although often so unsystematic in their faith.

The research into God's word opened up another field of inquiry which supplied the intellectual element so essential to man's mind. The growth of dogma has been mainly by controversy. The subject of study primarily apparent on the face of Holy Scripture was prophecy. The subject of prophecy was therefore very naturally the great subject in those days of early religious earnestness. It