out the help of others, but he takes no credit to himself for this; nor does he say one word in disparagement of any. Hence, in so far as this is concerned, his book can offend no one. We wish he had consulted others; we think he might have profited by this; but we say no more. He is the best judge of his own matters. The work is not for scholars, or at least not for them chiefly, but for the unlearned. It is, in fact, composed of lectures delivered to a regular congregation by their pastor. And as such, of course, it is designed for readers of all kinds. Its plain but not unattractive style fits it for this. Private Christians might reap much benefit from its perusal. Christ is its theme from first to last. Nowhere is He lost sight of, either in his person or his work. It is a 'good matter' that the writer's heart and pen pour forth, for he speaks throughout of the things concerning the King.

Thus much concerning the author and his volume generally. We must go more closely to work. It is no easy matter to review a work like the present in detail. There are so many points which require to be taken up and discussed, that not one article but many would be needed to give a complete view of the subject. To run over each lecture, however briefly, would be impossible. To take up each different portion of the epistle, and bring out our author's exposition, would be still more impracticable. We must forego any such attempt, and content ourselves with a selection of topics. We propose to fix upon a few of the more difficult and controverted passages, and endeavour to discuss them pretty fully. This we feel to be by far the most satisfactory plan for ourselves, and, we are persuaded, the most beneficial to our readers.

But we must first point out a few things in which we very decidedly differ from our author. We shall do this briefly, as the matters we have to advert to are not brought very prominently before us in these volumes, or but only occasionally, and not so much in the way of argument as of simple statement.

1. We fear his views of the atonement are somewhat loose. We see plainly that he does not hold the crude imbecilities of modern Scotch Arminianism, but still he seems to deny that it is the work of Christ which has infallibly secured salvation for the Church. We fear that he holds the atonement to be a work which has made salvation possible to all, but sure to none. He professes to be Calvinistic in his views, but his Calvinism is not the election of a people for whom atonement is to be made, and by which atonement they are to be infallibly redeemed; but it is simply the election of a people out of a world whose sins have

been all atoned for. It is chiefly in the introduction that these views are adduced, and we shall not further allude to them save to protest against the opinion which he imputes to those whom he calls hyper-Calvinists, viz. that Christ actually endured, pang for pang, and stroke for stroke, the very sufferings which his people should have endured. That such are not the views of those to whose charge he lays the holding of them, may be seen from the last note in the appendix to Dr Candlish's work on the atonement, to which we refer him and the reader; for this is not the place for entering more fully into the discussion of these topics.

2. We dislike not a little the way in which he speaks of the Athanasian creed, and defends the Church of England from the charges that have been brought against her, on account of the anathemas with which she has fenced the fallible language of a man,-of a man speaking, too, on the profoundest of all inaccessible truths. Speaking of the Trinity, and of the way in which the Nicene and Athanasian creeds have stated the doctrine, the author tells us, that their statements are truth, in its purest form, distilled, without mixture, from the fountain of truth.'* What more could he have said for them, had they been inspired? And then to glory in the curses wherewith she assails every one that does not receive these words of a fallible man, is what we could not have expected from Mr Tait. It reminded us of Edward Irving in his latter days. It is strange how ministers and members of the Church of England are so fond of lauding their 'admirable liturgy,' and their admirable creed.'†

3. We reject his statements regarding the Old Testament saints. He maintains, that, on account of the darkness of their dispensation,' they lived and died in bondage, having no assured peace with God.'‡ We cannot discuss this point here; but every chapter, we might say every verse, of Old Testament history refutes it. That there was a difference between them and the saints under the new dispensation, we believe; but that they had no assured peace with God is an opinion unwarranted by Scripture. That they had greater fear of death and dimmer views of the resurrection is no proof at all. A saint, and yet not at peace with God! Incredible! What! Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, &c., not at peace with God! To be in bondage because of feeble light is a very different thing from having no assured peace with God.

4. We still more object to the statements made at p. 182. The following is one: 'Even after the spirits of just men like

Hezekiah had passed into the disembodied state, their peace was not perfect. They did not attain to this peace till Christ died, and went himself and preached the gospel to them in prison!' Of the proof of this, drawn from the well-known passage in first Peter, about the spirits in prison, we shall not say a word. It would require a long discussion. Of the proof derived from 1 Peter iv. 6, we may say a little. The passage runs, for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.' Mr Tait calls this express language. So it is; but expressly the opposite of what he would have it to be. Its meaning is obviously this: "For this cause was the gospel in former days preached to those who are now dead (but who were alive when it was preached to them) that they believing it, might be justified before God, though condemned by ungodly men.' We have no room to justify the above paraphrase; but it would not be hard to do so. In confirmation of his opinion, he quotes his own church as using the following language concerning Christ: His ghost departing from him, was with the ghosts that were in hades, and did preach to the same, as the place of St Peter doth testify.' On reading this, we were somewhat at a loss to remember when or where the Church of England had given forth the above authoritative statement. We remembered that it was not in the 39 Articles, for the article referring to this part is very brief and general. We could think of no passage in the liturgy like this. At last we remembered that there were several confessions' of the English Church, and several revisions of her creed. On consulting authorities, we found that the passage quoted is from the Articles as they stood in 1552. It was then certainly the voice of the Church; but it was afterwards expressly struck out. How, then, can it possibly be called the teaching of the Church? We should have called it the very opposite. It was the thing which the Church did not teach, and did not want to teach. But, besides this, Mr Tait's citation of the passage is most inaccurate. In the original it runs thus: Spiritus ab illo emissus, cum spiritibus qui in carcere sive in inferno detinebantur, fuit; illisque praedicavit ut testatur Petri locus. Now, we shall not positively aver, that in inferno must mean in hell, as we understand the word; for we know, that the expression might admit of a wider reference; but, remembering the time when it was thus used, the way in which it occurs in Romish books and monkish sermons, and the general idea then attached to it, we are persuaded that such was designed to be its meaning, and, in all likelihood, it was for this reason that it was subsequently struck out; and if so, why should Mr

Tait have quoted it, seeing he tells us, that the gospel was never preached to the wicked dead."*

But we must leave the matter here. Longer discussion would be unprofitable. We fear that the author has made some unguarded and unwarrantable statements upon the point referred to, and we would ask them to reconsider him.

5. We fear that his ideas of the sacraments are too High Church. We shall not do him the injustice of calling them Tractarian: No. But they seem almost to border on it, when he tells us, in one of the notes to the first volume, that he holds salvation by the sacraments and by faith.' His subsequent explanations may remove something of the offensiveness of this statement, but it is far too unqualified.

6. His views on what he calls 'conditional reprobation,' we do not fully understand. In so far as we do, we suspect there is something out of joint in them, both logically and scripturally. But we can only point this out without entering into discussion upon it. The author maintains unconditional election, yet insists on conditional reprobation. We are at a loss to get at his meaning.

But

There are other points in this volume on which we might have offered a few remarks, but we cannot occupy more space. These, we believe, are the chief; though now and then there are expressions occurring, with which we do not entirely accord. let us do all justice to Mr Tait, and declare again that there is much in these volumes fitted to edify and refresh, and that if our readers will take them with a few abatements, they will find in them no inconsiderable amount of profitable reading. And let us here cite some specimens; illustrating Christ's death, as the death of one in our nature, he thus speaks:

66

Being charged as the second Adam, with the sins of men, he confessed them, with all their aggravations, in man's name, to God. Mine iniquities,' he said, 'have taken hold on me, so that I am not able to look up.' On his bended knees, moreover, in dark Gethsemane, he stretched forth man's hand to take willingly that cup of bitterness, which was the righteous wages of man's transgression." Vol. ii., p. 641.

Again, in setting forth the faith of the ancient saints, he thus writes of the believer:

"He cannot, therefore, be otherwise than a stranger on the earth; for the world does not understand him, and he does not understand the world. Unbelief makes us strangers to God, and enables us to understand the world; and faith brings us near to God, and makes us strangers to the world. . . . . And so long as God and the world preserve their respective characters, this must be the result of faith." Ib. 844.

* P. 182.

Again, of Christ's worthiness to rule he thus beautifully speaks:

"On the subject of Christ's reward, something yet remains to be said. God will not give dominion and rule to the unworthy; for he who will not govern for the glory of God, and the blessedness of the creature, cannot be trusted with power. God will give it to Christ, because Christ is worthy. The same word which speaks of his throne as eternal, speaks of his sceptre, as a sceptre of righteousness. But what proof has Christ given that it shall be so? His life and death in our nature are the proof. The cross proclaims his qualifications for empire. He who so loved God, that for his glory he was content to die, may well be trusted to govern for that glory. And he who so loved man, that he gave himself for man's salvation, may well be trusted with dominion over man, for his rule will be exercised in equity and truth." Pp. 40-41.

Of the weight and height of glory in reserve for the saints, we read:

-

"These great things have been done to exalt us to a great height of glory. Our nature is already exalted, for Jesus, by incarnation, has taken manhood into God. We learned this also from the first chapter. It told us that the Son of God and man now sits on high as the Father's begotten-the object of worship to angels. It told us that on his head the Father's crown is resting, and that he now occupies the Father's throne. It told us that in man's countenance, creation is now to read for ever the expression of the mind of invisible Godhead. This is, indeed, an ennobling of human nature, of the human race. For, as an eloquent writer has beautifully expressed it, our brother is the God of angels,' Unitarians speak much of the dignity of human nature. But denying as they do, the Godhead of Christ, they know nothing of this dignity. Man's real dignity consists in what I have just declared, THE SON OF THE HIGHEST IS A MAN." P. 82.

As to what is the life of Christ, and in what especial respects, the saints are said to possess this in themselves, our author brings out some fresh and vigorous thoughts. We like the following passage, as containing something that is new, and very precious to the believing soul:

"A father is the author of life to his children, and the life which he communicates is his own; God has given to Christ to be the father of children, and these children are begotten in his own likeness, and after his own image. We have already seen what Christ's likeness and image are. Holy confidence in God, holy gratitude and thankfulness, are the prominent features of his perfect character. And this is the character which he forms by his Holy Spirit in his children. St Paul assigns this as Christ's object in bringing himself and his brethren into trouble. Always bearing about in the body,' he says, the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.' And, again, he says with more distinctness, we which live, are always