the two essays side by side, will infallibly arise from such perusal convinced that in suggestive thought, in cogency of criticism, and in gentlemanly style, Dr. Williams is immeasurably superior. Of Mr. Rorison's essay we can speak most favourably as to style and power of writing. He fails, however, entirely to establish the position that a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis is in any way possible. To use his own language at p. 336, "The days of creation are transfigured from registers of time into definitives of strophes or stanzas, lamps and landmarks of a creative sequence, a mystic drapery, a parabolic setting, shadowing by the sacred cycle of seven, the truths of an ordered progress, etc. Of course this interpretation leaves the whole question entirely open to Mr. Godwin, Mr. Miller, Dr. Buckland, or any other writer who may offer an explanation of this ancient poem, for such Mr. Rorison esteems it. We may dismiss his essay with the remark that, at p. 335, he has mistaken the nature of "parallelism." The peculiarity of this mode of constructing sentences which Mr. R. rightly observes is "not proper to historical narrative," consists in so arranging the clauses of a sentence that the latter shall explain the former. The first words of the 104th Psalm, "Praise the Lord, O my soul," explained by their paraphrase "and all that is within me bless his holy name," is an instance of parallelism to which there is nothing similar in the first of Genesis or in the Lord's Prayer as arranged by Mr. R. We can by no means subscribe, therefore, on such slender grounds, to Mr. Rorison's italicised announcement that he has discovered the true key to the cosmogonic puzzle of Moses.

Dr. Heurtley's essay on miracles is a very weak production. He tells us at p. 48, that "a miracle in the scriptural notion of the word is a violation neither of the laws of matter, nor of any other of the laws of nature. It is simply the intervention of a being possessing superhuman power, etc. Let us test the worth of this definition by a single instance. It is a law of nature that water having less specific gravity than a solid shall yield to the pressure of that solid acting freely in a vertical direction, and not counteracted by other and artificial means. In consequence of this natural law a man, if he attempts to walk on the water, goes straight to the bottom; but when our Lord walked upon the water, he did not thus sink, and, as it seems to us, it is in this violation of the laws of nature that the miracle consists. And this simple argument may be applied to each of the marvels recorded in Scripture; and it may be safely affirmed that if they are mere variations of the laws of nature usually in operation, they either fail in their object as signs and proofs of divine interference, or that Nature 1862 years ago must have been very different in her operation from Nature in these modern times. We also notice a serious fallacy of statement in p. 149. Dr. Heurtley says, and justly, that when man "moulds or controls the operation of the ordinary laws of matter which are in exercise around him. . . his doings are not miracles; but the reason which he assigns for this is not the true reason. He should have said, "Because men do not change the laws of matter," instead of saying as he does, "Because they (his doings) do not extend beyond

the range of his unassisted powers.' The whole subsequent essay is built upon this inconsequent definition, and may be dismissed with it. In fact all that follows is the stale and tedious repetition of the old arguments-the crambe repetita of ordinary writers upon evidences.

The replies of Mr. Goulbourn to Dr. Temple, of Mr. Irons to Mr. Wilson, and of Mr. Haddon to Dr. Pattison, which are rather counteressays with special side objects of their own, than attacks upon those whom they nominally criticize, need no special notice. The remarks, perhaps, of Dr. Irons will be perused with satisfaction by many who think the existing relations between Church and State highly unsatisfactory, and who believe that the immediate severance of an unnatural bond is the only solution of the difficulty.

We must now devote a few concluding words to the Rev. Dr. Wordsworth's remarks in reply to Professor Jowett upon the Interpretation of Scripture.

It is strange to see how slow theological writers are to unlearn the habit, which seems to have clung to them from the days of Jerome downwards, of substituting abuse for argument, and of supposing that violence of assertion can build up a falling cause. Certainly the

learned doctor is herein not one whit behind the Rev. H. J. Rose. For instance, Mr. Jowett's essay is a "whispering-gallery of indistinct sounds muttering evil" (p. 465), which is surely somewhat of a contradiction in terms, for if the sounds are so indistinct, how can they be known as evil? Then Professor Jowett, "armed cap-a-pie in a panoply of ignorance" (p. 416); "a visionary æon in the pure pleroma of his own imagination" (p. 420); "his stock in trade a totum nil" (p. 421); "corrects the Holy Ghost" (p. 484); "administers poison to the souls of his youthful hearers" (p. 473); "fights with the fiery darts of the wicked one against the Holy Spirit of God" (p. 436); and brings accusations against the evangelists which would "not be received by any justice of the peace at any petty sessions" (p. 436). The essay itself is "hollow, worthless, presumptuous, profane" (p. 467), "arrogant" (p. 486), "irreverent" (p. 485), and is a proof of "miserable ignorance, pitiful infatuation, the fruit of arrogance and irreverence" (p. 485). It ought to be considered, as indeed it is, a sufficient refutation of the reply, that such language is to be found in its every page.

It is not our intention to follow the learned doctor in his recapitulation of arguments which must be familiar to all who are acquainted with the difficulties which he undertakes to shew are no difficulties at all. We will be content to point out that the supposition at p. 434, as what might have happened, can never stand as a proof of the fulfilment of a prophecy; that the statement (p. 438), "the books of the New Testament were delivered [which? where? when?] by the apostles and evangelists to the Church [name?] as of equal authority with the books of the Old Testament," can never be proved. That the attempt to shew that St. Paul did not expect the end of the world to happen in his time is a failure; as is shewn by the criticism on the text, We which are alive and remain,” etc.

66

"St. Paul's we," says the doctor, "is an universal we, and is

applicable to every age" (p. 443). The answer to which is, that although St. Paul by the use of the word we identifies himself with others at a distance, and opposed to him, he never uses it of those who live at a subsequent period. We deny also that Luke's Gospel traces up the pedigree of Jesus to David by natural descent (p. 448). The pedigree is that of Joseph, and the Greek does not admit of any other construction; and we remain unconvinced by the arguments (p. 452), and uninfluenced by the exhortations (p. 459), relative to inspiration. It must be sufficient for any plain reader of the Scriptures to know that the writers nowhere assert their own inspiration. The only passage where the word theopneustos occurs refers to the books, or rather part of the books, of the Old Testament.

We have thus noticed the salient points of these official replies, and feel convinced that the writers of Essays and Reviews have as little to fear from their strictures, as the friends of orthodoxy have to rejoice in their champions. And, least of all, will the more liberal and intelligent find any echo in their bosoms to the language of the Bishop of Oxford, when he calls for the severe, firm, unflinching action of authority (Preface, pp. 15, 16.)

CLERICUS.

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia. Revelation ii., iii. By RICHARD CHEVENIX TRENCH, D.D., Dean of Westminster. 8vo. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn. 1861. THERE is a beautiful simplicity and transparency of style and spirit about the works of Dean Trench, which, connected with their pure thoughts and living theology, fixes our attention and wins our hearts. To praise his English would be superfluous, for his accomplishments in this department are known to all. To say that his writings are sincere, earnest, and pious, would be only to say what none deny. To claim for them any remarkable profundity or originality, would also be wrong. They do not dazzle us by their novelty or their ingenuity. They are not brilliant and imaginative. They are not even extraordinary for their learning. And yet they lure us on by the calm and easy, quiet and natural flow of thoughts and words. They instruct us by their undeniable good sense, and they enlist our suffrages by their invariable right feeling. They owe nothing to those devices to which many owe their popularity, and yet they are undeniably adapted for popularity. They remind us of the phrase of Horace," Simplex munditiis," and when we have said this we have said all we need say.

We gather from the preface that this volume is based upon lectures delivered at King's College, to which much has been added, and some alterations applied. In reference to the epistles to the seven churches, Dean Trench says with perfect accuracy

"The points of peculiar attraction which they offer to the student of ecclesiastical history are many. Who are these angels of the churches? What do

we learn from their evident pre-eminence in their several churches about the government and constitution of the church in the later apostolic times? or is it lawful to draw any conclusions? Again, was there a body of heretics actually bearing the name of Nicolaitans in the times of St. John? And those that had the doctrine of Balaam, and the followers of the woman Jezebel, with what heretics mentioned elsewhere, shall we identify them? Or, once more, what is the worth of that historico-prophetical scheme of interpretation adopted by our own Joseph Mede and Henry More, and many others down even to the present day? who see in these seven epistles the mystery of the whole evolution of the Church from the days of the apostles to the close of the present dispensation? Was this so intended by the Spirit? or is it only a dream and fancy of men ?"

We shall see what answer is given to some of these questions, as we proceed. Our author continues ::

"Nor less is there a strong attraction in these epistles for those who occupy themselves with questions of pure exegesis, from the fact of so many unsolved, or imperfectly solved, problems of interpretation being found in them. It is seldom within so small a compass that so many questions to which no answer can be given with perfect confidence, occur. What for instance, is the exact meaning, and what the etymology of xaλкоλíßavos (i. 15, ii. 18)? What the interpretation of the white stone with the new name written upon it (ii. 17)? Why is Pergamum called 'Satan's seat' (ii. 13)? With many other questions of the same kind."

NEW SERIES.-VOL. 1., NO. I.

P

Dean Trench goes on to illustrate what he calls "the entire originality of these epistles;" their theological interest and their practical interest. He regrets that some portions of the Book of Revelation, as the second and third chapters, are not appointed to be read in the congregation.

The apostle John is accepted as the author of the Revelation. By "the seven spirits" the Holy Ghost "sevenfold in his operations" is understood. The idea that the Apocalypse was written during the reign of Domitian is favoured. The Lord's day is accepted as a designation of Sunday, and the term is supposed to have had its origin here. The seven churches in Asia are regarded as typical and representative churches. Chalcolibanus is considered at some length, and the explanation preferred which regards it as "burnished brass," and which was first suggested by Bochart. This makes it a hybrid from the Greek xalkos, and the Hebrew. The "angels" of the churches are explained as their bishops; and an inference is drawn from the terms in favour of the apostolic institution of episcopal government in the church. We can but allude to an interesting discussion of the number "seven" which occurs so frequently in the Apocalypse.

In chap. ii. 6 the Nicolaitans are mentioned, and are identified by Dr. Trench with the followers of Balaam, or imitators of Balaam mentioned in the fourteenth verse. Herein he takes the ground of numerous expositors who find in the word Nicolaus a translation of the Hebrew word Balaam. The etymology is ingenious but doubtful, and the identification by no means certain. Indeed the fair construction of verses 14, 15, requires us imperatively to distinguish the followers of Balaam from those of Nicolaus : "Thou hast them that hold the doctrine of Balaam,—so hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans." There is no fair escape from this exegesis, and the other would never have been devised, but from the supposed impossibility that Nicolaus, one of the seven first deacons, became a heretic. Now, in the first place, the opinions of the Balaamites and Nicolaitans are not said to be the same; indeed the views of the latter are not stated at all in this chapter. In the second place several of the fathers expressly affirm the existence of a sect of Nicolaitans. Putting aside all other testimony we have the witness of Irenæus, who says:"Nicolaitæ autem, magistrum quidem habent Nicolaum, unum ex vii. qui primi ad diaconium ab apostolis ordinati sunt, qui indiscrete vivunt. Plenissime autem per Joannis Apocalypsin manifestantur qui sint, nullam differentiam esse docentes in mochando et idolothytum edere. Qua propter dixit et de iis sermo: sed hoc habes quod odisti opera Nicolaitarum, quæ et ego odi." There is also the twofold evidence of Hippolytus, whose acquaintance with early heresies was very extensive and accurate. The first statement of his to which we will refer is in his Refutatio Omnium Hæresiarum, lib. vii., p. 408 (Göttingen, 1859), where he expressly speaks of Nicolaus, one of the seven appointed deacons by the apostles, as the father of the Gnostics, and ascribes to