Man and his Dwelling-Place.

273 God and things eternal are very near, so that however blind to their existence we may be, a single step, a sudden "accident," for example, might bring our disembodied spirit to an immediate recognition and knowledge of them. But does the author mean that the spiritual world, of which as well as of the visible creation God is the living Ruler, is identical with that visible creation? He seems to say so. "This world is the spiritual world, not known." Is it not more reasonable to regard the spiritual world, in the aspect of it to which the author alludes, as the region of influence from which that power proceeds which is exercised in "upholding" the material universe,—the "laws of nature" being the manifestation of the Divine power and the expression of the Divine will. "There lives and moves a soul in all

things, and that soul is God."

But to resume. Man's deadness is, in the view of this writer, a state of defect by no means involving culpability. Is this the Scriptural view? Then, man's deliverance from that state of deadness is by Christ, whose death is represented as the redemption of the world. This is the great fact of the New Testament, the saving of all men by Christ; for the author holds by absolute salvation of the race. What, then, about the experience of individuals, consequent upon redemption by Christ? Every man on believing becomes partaker of life, passes from death to life. But then the deadness is not thus removed. "That deadness, as it does not arise from a condition affecting the individual alone, so it cannot be removed by an individual change." The life of the individual is involved in the salvation of the race. Individual redemption is in the redemption of mankind. All are to be saved, for "doubtless man shall not like sin for ever. He must feel it differently, feel it the greatest misery. But how can that be to be damned? Surely that were rather to be saved." When, through the "everlasting punishment" (discipline) to which they shall be subjected, the "wicked" get to feel differently, the redemption of man will be complete. Then, but not till then, will the individual be perfectly redeemed. Death will then be destroyed. God will be all in all.

We shall not insult our readers by formally refuting this extraordinary concatenation of false doctrine, which professes to be the solution of the problem of humanity, and the reconciliation of Calvinism and Arminianism. Only be it observed, how thoroughly the author leaves out of sight the real nature of Christ's atoning death. It is true that the ultimate object of that death was the salvation of men from sin, or, as it is put in the book before us, "Christ's saving us from being wicked." But before moral resemblance to God could be reached, reconciliation with God must be effected. Sin characterised man's state, and he needed deliverance from its power; but sin against the righteous Governor is guilt, a violation of law, and calls for punishment. Christ's suretyship meets the case, for His endurance of the penalty due to those whom he represented secured their acquittal in due course. The great thing was, that sin should be condemned in the flesh." This was realised on Calvary, and the awakened sinner

obtains not solid peace until he sees that in Christ's atoning work the law was magnified, and justice satisfied, and sin's condemning power destroyed.

Paley's Moral Philosophy; with Annotations by Richard Whately, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. London: John W. Parker and Son, West Strand. 1859.

Dr WHATELY has, in the publication of this volume, done good service not merely to the student of Paley's work, but to the science of natural ethics. In a series of annotations vividly marked by all that lively shrewdness of thought and apt use of admirably chosen illustrations, which have so greatly enhanced to the modern reader the "Essays of Bacon," the infirmities of Paley's system, with his anomalous method of treating the principles of morals, are clearly pointed out. What can be more truly characteristic of the Archbishop's entire style of mind, or so strongly detective of the English Archdeacon's partial embrace of ethical truth, than the following passage:-"Paley has pointed out very clearly and justly the two defects of any system of human laws considered as a "rule of life;" that is, in reference merely to the external acts, done or omitted. But in warning men (as he does) against the error of being satisfied with themselves so long as their conduct is not in violation of the laws, it is needful to add a third consideration,the reference to the inward motive of the agent. For, even if it were possible for the laws to enjoin everything that is good, and prohibit everything that is wrong, still, a man who should act rightly merely in obedience to the laws, and for the sake of avoiding legal penalties, might not be at all what any one would account a good man, because he would not be acting from a virtuous motive; and it is entirely on the motives and disposition of the mind that the moral character of any one's conduct depends. An action, indeed, which is done from a bad or an inferior motive may be in itself right, as being what a good man would be disposed to do, as when a man pays his debts for fear of being imprisoned, or, having his goods seized; but this does not make him an honest man."

In their direct instructiveness, the main value of these annotations will, in a high degree, approve itself to those readers especially whose habits of thought and study have been originally moulded towards a preference for the practical side of ethical questions. In asserting the natural grounds of virtuous conduct, in an unhesitating vindication of the validity of natural conscience, while admitting its liability to moral error, and in exposure of the serious injury done to theological as well as moral truth, by perverted views of Scriptural doctrine in regard to man's natural faculties, Archbishop Whately is here, as everywhere in his writings, eminently practical.

But a still higher estimate of these "Annotations" will be entertained by such as naturally prefer the analysis of principles to the establishment of rules, and the tracing out of remote causes to the exposition of palpable effects. In cursory hints of similar errors and defects in other branches of philosophy-in references to analogous

Original Language of St Matthew's Gospel-Roberts. 275

forms of ethical sophistry-that, if articulately set forth in words, carry along with them the ready means of their own chastisement and refutation; and, at times, in almost incidental references to special periods and authorities in the science of ethics, the elements of many interesting questions are suggested to speculative thinkers. For example, at page 26 we meet with the following fruitful passage:"Paley's theory is derived, as he informs us, in great measure from Tucker's "Light of Nature," a work of great originality, and containing much curious and valuable matter, mixed up with much that is not all deserving of approbation. It is a book which I have been accustomed (as I have observed in the preface) to compare to a gold mine, containing many particles, and some considerable masses of very precious metal, confusedly intermingled with much gravel and clay. I cannot think Paley was happy in his choice of the portion he has selected. He would have found a much safer guide in the celebrated Bishop Butler. The denial, however, of a moral faculty was no new device of Tucker's, being substantially what was maintained by the infidel Hobbes in his once celebrated work, the "Leviathan ;" and it was so far from being new then, that it is noticed by Aristotle as having been maintained in his time."

Nine years after Paley's birth Bishop Butler died, leaving behind him, in his "Sermons at the Rolls," his noble vindication of man's ethical nature, as opposed to all artificial systems. How, then, was Paley, who honestly aimed at securing the most solid foundation for morals, led to prefer Abraham Tucker as a guide, and to adopt the principle of the tendency of actions as the keystone of his system? Is it possible that, in the strictly practical cast of his intellect, he had little sympathy with Butler, and naturally preferred the shallower groove of thought in which the author of the "Light of Nature" prosecuted his investigations? And why did the circular method of argument which he followed in regard to the basis of moral distinctions, and in which the essential vice of his method is so palpably involved, conceal itself from his clear and honest intellect?

Such are some of the questions that are naturally presented to the thoughtful reader of this most interesting and instructive work.

Inquiry into the Original Language of St Matthew's Gospel; with relative Discussions on the Language of Palestine in the Time of Christ, and on the Origin of the Gospels. By the Rev. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, M.A., Minister of the Presbyterian Church, St John's Wood. London: Samuel Bagster and Son, 15, Paternoster Row.

As of some intricate and perplexing questions in Biblical Science, the probabilities of which are almost equally balanced, doubtful opinions, modestly expressed, might be reasonably expected, so the most positive judgments that are sometimes pronounced on both sides of other questions, the elements of which are comparatively obvious and well-defined, are fitted but to call forth words of surprise and sadness.

Concurring in the verdict of Mr Roberts on the question of the

276 Original Language of St Matthew's Gospel-Roberts.

original language of the Gospel of St Matthew, the facts of which have, in so many instances, in times past been exposed to uncommon violence in the service of dogmatic conclusions, we have been frequently almost startled into something akin to indignation by the contemptuous tone in which the abettors of the Hebrew theory have too often indulged in the long, oscillating course of this controversy.

Nor is the subject involved of small importance to the Church, or the history of its discussion devoid of grave and solemn interest. For ages it has at divers periods engaged the serious consideration of Biblical scholars and dogmatic divines. Like almost every other similar question that has emerged amidst the agitation of broader interests, it has at every period rapidly assumed in the eyes of the contending parties almost doctrinal dimensions and claims to regard, out of all due proportion to its absolute force, however great though that really is.

Mr Roberts has, we think, stated the question with as great fairness as he has ably discussed and maintained his own views of it. The following topics, arranged by him in five chapters, will enable the reader to judge alike of his materials and method:-In chapter i. he gives his statement of the question and of the method of his inquiry. The language of Palestine in the time of Christ is the subject of chapter ii.; while chapters iii., iv., and v. embrace respectively the "Internal Evidence of the Proper Originality of the existing Greek Gospel of St Matthew," the "External Evidence," and the "Results of the Preceding Inquiry."

As illustrative alike of the author's style of thought and peculiarly solemn treatment of his subject, we make the following extracts :"It is a curious psychological problem, how so many able and learned critics, looking at this question with a sincere desire to know the truth, and with exactly the same data on which to form their judgment, should have been guided to such contradictory results. It cannot be doubted, indeed, that in some cases dogmatic prepossessions have operated to the detriment of the critical judgment. This is sufficiently obvious from the fact, that most Romish writers have been on the one side, and most Protestant writers on the other. The former have, for the most part, maintained the hypothesis of a Hebrew, and the latter of a Greek original; and this is but too plainly in accordance with the doctrinal leanings of their respective Churches. Romanists are anxious, at all times, to magnify the authority of the Church; and in this question they find an excellent opportunity for doing so, at the expense of their opponents. They eagerly adopt the opinion that our existing Gospel of St Matthew is merely a version from the original Hebrew, executed by some unknown translator; and then they easily fix their adversaries in the dilemma either of admitting it into the canon of Scripture solely on the ground that the Church has sanctioned it, or of denying that it is possessed of any authority at all. With Protestants, again, it is a fundamental principle to uphold the supreme authority of the Word of God in opposition to all merely ecclesiastical claims upon their reverence and sub

mission; and this they have felt no easy matter in regard to the existing Gospel of St Matthew. In order to place it on the same footing as the other books of the New Testament, it is necessary to make out, either that the original Gospel was in fact that which we now possess, or that our present Greek is an equally and authentative work as the original Hebrew; and in grappling with the difficulties of the question, Protestant writers have sometimes been tempted to assume the point which they were required to prove, and to seek support for their position in grounds that cannot be maintained in argument."-P. 3.

"To attach importance to our own subjective notions, when opposed to evidence, or when unsupported by it, is, in fact, to arrogate to ourselves a position to which we have no rightful claim. For shall we presume to say what God must or ought to have done? Is it for us to settle beforehand, either the manner or the contents of the revelation which He may be pleased to make to us; or to dictate the course which, in His Providence, He shall afterwards pursue with regard to it. Surely these are matters which, as every pious and reflecting mind will feel, must be left to His sovereign pleasure; and the only thing which we have to do is to search and consider the proof with which we are furnished that He has acted in one way or another. Evidence, and not predilection, is the guide which we are bound to follow in every matter connected with Scripture."-P. 7.

In concluding this notice-the brevity of which is by no means coincident with the estimate we have formed of the value of Mr Roberts' work, for we cannot too highly recommend it to the careful perusal of every Biblical scholar-we have to express the peculiar pleasure that we have derived from the luminous and direct style of diction that pervades it.

The Life of Jabez Bunting, D.D.; with Notices of Contemporary Persons and Events. By his Son, THOMAS PERCIVAL BUNTING. Vol. I. London: Longmans.

THE life of Dr Bunting must be regarded as an important contribution to the literature both of Christian Biography and of English Ecclesiastical History, and we only await the completion of the work to devote to it the ample consideration for which an extended article may afford scope. It would scarcely be doing justice to such a theme to confine our remarks upon it to the limits of a brief notice like the present; and it would hardly be fair to any party-to the subject of the biography, to the biographer, or to ourselves-to attempt to deal at large with a half-told story. We have no fear, however, that the perusal of the next volume will materially modify our present impressions regarding either the character of Dr Bunting or the merits of this biography. On the contrary, we confidently anticipate that our estimate of both will be strengthened and confirmed. Meanwhile, we have the utmost pleasure in saying, that this estimate is a very high one. As to Dr Bunting himself, this assurance is, of course, unnecessary. For many years he was confessedly the most prominent man in