things can be, of the true doctrine of the one nature and plurality of persons in the Godhead." ("Commentary on John x. 30," by Dr. Wordsworth.)

Here, then, at least, is an intelligible principle, namely, the consubstantiality of all men, by which the unity of God, and the unity of the Church as founded upon it, are said to be illustrated as far as human things can afford an illustration; and there is no doubt that it is in accordance with this illustration that the idea of the unity of God is commonly entertained; for the human mind, especially in things pertaining to its salvation, is glad to escape from the region of unintelligible mysteries, and take up its abode in what it can, in some measure, understand. In this case the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are conceived to be one God in virtue of a common Godhead, in like manner as three Christian human beings are one Christian man in virtue of their common humanity and Christianity. This doctrine is known as that of the specific unity, and is no other than the unity of tritheism, according to which the Father and the Son are tacitly conceived to be two Divine Beings, the One supreme as Father, the other subordinate as Son, while another is regarded as receiving His mission from one or both of these Two; all Three being consubstantially One God, on the same principle that three men are consubstantially one man. In this manner the unity of God, otherwise represented as incomprehensible, is easily comprehended; and the most learned as well as the most ignorant may say that "each Divine Person is to be considered the One God, as entirely and absolutely as He would be held to be if we had never heard of the other Two," an enigma which is easily solved upon the principle that Peter, James, and John are all but one man, as being consubstantial, or having one common humanity; and that the person of Peter is as much one man as if we had never heard of the other two.

Thus far, then, since the Church is left without any intelligible principle of unity, or else with one that is destructive of the unity of God, and as such, of the Church itself, the question is of vital importance, Where else shall a principle of Church unity be found? It is here that the Latitudinarian interposes; and seeing no prospect of any bond of union being derived from the Creeds, feels constrained either to set them aside and to substitute a unity which shall comprehend all Creeds simply because it is independent of all, or else to select from the Creeds those articles alone which are thought to be essential. According to the first of these theories of unity we are told that

Latitudinarianism or Syncretism "would bring all Christians together on the basis that Christianity contains no one definite message, creed, or system; but that every man's view of revealed religion is acceptable to God if he acts up to it, and that all that we have to do is to hold in sincerity our own view of religious truth." (Vol. i. p. 258.)

The other theory of Latitudinarian unity is that of holding essentials only, but then its advocates are not agreed as to what those essentials are. The one essential of Church unity mentioned by our Lord in His prayer, "As Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee," has in this case ceased to be 1 Explanation of the Nicene Creed, by Bishop of Brechin, p. 87.

acknowledged as an essential, in consequence of being regarded as incomprehensible. The failure of Latitudinarianism, therefore, consists in placing the unity of the Church in a mutual charity having no relation to the union between the Father and the Son; and thus in building up the Church on a different foundation from that which is laid by our Lord. Nevertheless, in so far as it places charity before faith, it approximates to the principle contained in our Lord's prayer, and must ultimately lead to it, as will be seen in the sequel, or else fail altogether. At present the Latitudinarian unity, although so comprehensive in its principles, and extending only to a fraction of Christendom, may still be cordially welcomed as provisional until a unity is obtained of a higher order, and founded upon the one definite doctrine contained in the prayer of our Lord. With regard to Christendom in general, therefore, the question has still to be asked, What other principle of Church unity remains ?

In answer to this question, we have been told that the doctrines of the Church are mysteries transcending human reason (vol. ii. p. 101); that, even where they are said to be conformable to enlightened reason, they are not to be received on that ground, but solely on the authority of the Church (vol. i. p. 256); thus that the ancient Faith once for all delivered to the saints has for its sole foundation the authority of the Church, the Church alone being the originator and custodian of her own doctrines. The consequence is, that unity upon any other ground is at once condemned and rejected; a reunion of Churches, except upon the ground of absolute submission to authority, being regarded as self-destructive. Hence it is said—

"The chief Bishop of the Roman Church forbade those in obedience to him even to pray for unity, and would only admit of unconditional submission to himself." (Vol. ii. p. 207.)

"The Vatican Council was organized for the express purpose of making all plans of reunion for ever impossible." ("Lectures on the Reunion of the Churches," by Dr. Döllinger, p. 160.)

Now we have already seen that in the prayer of our Lord the reciprocal union between the Father and the Son is stated as alone the source of unity in the Church; the consequence is, in the present instance, either that the union between the Father and the Son is that of authority, or else it is a union absolutely rejected. In either case the ancient Faith has actually departed, and the consummation of the age is effected by the fulfilment of the prophecy: "When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find the Faith upon the earth?" It is this crisis of the Catholic Church that has happily startled out of their slumbers some of the wise virgins in the Church of England. Instead of taking refuge in despotic authority, they declare that

"Our duty positively seems to be this, 'to repair the altar of the Lord which has been broken down.' And oh, what a mighty work is here! oh, what a glorious vista in the future lies open before us! Never probably since the days of the Apostles, when the whole world lay in the darkness of spiritual death, waiting to be enlightened and converted, but certainly never since the Northern barbarians had overthrown the Roman Empire and had overspread Europe, presenting, as it were, 'countless fields

white unto the harvest,' has there been so great a work before any body of men as there is now before those members of the English Church who realize their position as Catholics." (Vol. ii. p. 64.)

Here, indeed, we welcome an expression of zeal equal to the occasion; but to what end is it to be exercised? According to the eminent Dr. Döllinger, the one end in view is the institution of a NEW or RENOVATED CHURCH::

"Where faith and love are found, there hope cannot be absent. He who believes in Christ, and loves his country and Christians of all confessions, cannot divest himself of the hope that no distant future may reveal a Church which, as the genuine heir and representative of the Church of the early centuries, may have room and power of attraction for those who are now separated; a Church where liberty will be reconciled with order, discipline, morality, and unity of faith with science and freedom of inquiry." "Lectures on the Reunion of the Churches," by Dr. Döllinger, p. 102.) M. A.

(To be continued.)

THE SUPERNATURAL IN NATURE.1

THIS is a bulky volume by an anonymous author, the object of which is a praiseworthy one, being no other than to offer a bold front against the modern tendency to scientific scepticism. It is dedicated to the Lord Bishop of London, and is written by one who is evidently widely read in science and philosophy. It abounds in apt quotations from the modern leaders of scientific thought, as well as from other sources which have apparently been drawn from the author's well-stocked common-place book, in which he has long been accustomed to transcribe what struck him as specially worthy of note in the wide range of his reading.

After stating the case in a preface, in which he points out that his object is to deal with those who deny supernaturalism, and who refuse to believe in a personal God, the author proceeds to the inquiry, "Is intellect divorced from piety?" in which the views expressed in various works by Herbert Spencer, Tyndall, Huxley, and others, are combated; and while showing that the light of nature is insufficient to the wants of man, and that revelation is made to our reason, he concludes that piety is the crown of intelligence. Appealing, then, to the universal belief in the supernatural, he sets forth the argument for a First Cause, and points out how fully it is confirmed by revelation, commending to materialists the superiority of the doctrine of a personal God.

The main argument of this volume is based upon the grandeur, the magnificence, and the comprehensiveness of the creative work. Standing on the threshold of creation," he shows how it transcends our most exalted 1 The Supernatural in Nature: A Verification by free Use of Science. London: J. Kegan, Paul, & Co. 1878. (477 pp.)

comprehension; how, in spite of the scientific intelligence of those who think they have fathomed the secrets of life, our own beginning is unexplainable and full of mystery; that it is indeed preposterous to suppose we shall ever trace scientifically the continuity of molecular processes into the phenomena of consciousness; and concludes that beyond the region of all science there is an unascertained something,--an Unknown, on whom all phenomena and their relations rest.”

Examining, then, the rudiments of the universe, the author points to the wonders of its molecular constitution, the marvels of its minute structure; and shows how deep into the nature of matter the laws of Divine energy are found to penetrate, manifesting a mysterious power, "a power which, Herbert Spencer says, transcends intuition, and is beyond imagination.” He points to the world as the fittest representation of God's majesty; shows how an all-sustaining power is everywhere manifested; and that the only possible origin of imperfect and dependent creatures is to be found in the will and power of the Independent and Perfect" (p. 83). Next he turns to the theories of life, and points out how absurdly imperfect are the definitions given by materialist philosophers who seem to seek by mere verbosity to cover ignorance and make it sound like knowledge; and this brings him to what indeed constitutes a large part of the work, viz. a vindication of the early chapters of Genesis, as containing a divinelyinspired, though simple outline of cosmogony; not indeed suggesting that the first chapter of Genesis is intended to be regarded from a strictly scientific standpoint, or that it was even intended as a strictly scientific revelation, but regarding its broad outlines, viewed by the light of modern science, as corroborative of its supernatural origin.

We will not follow the author through his studies on this subject, they have often been handled before, and we do not think that anything essentially new has been added in the present volume, though the subject is handled with ability and earnestness. The fifteenth study has been devoted to a comparison of the two accounts of creation given in the first and second chapters of Genesis; and although he seems inclined to believe that they are capable of reconciliation from his standpoint, there yet appears to be a lurking desire to allegorize the second chapter. Finding, indeed, that it is impossible to entertain in a literal sense some of the statements (the absence of rain, for example), he goes as far as to say, "If the whole be counted an allegory, the underlying truth is not the less intense or real" (p. 292). But unfortunately he seems undecided about it, and his arguments therefore lose force.

The next studies are directed against the brute origin of man and his savage beginnings, the derivation of language from animal cries, and various other questions on the much-debated subject of Evolution, as taught by Darwin and his expositors. As may be supposed, our author brings many good arguments to shake the basis of this widely-received hypothesis; and shows much research in dealing with the statements of his opponents, which are too often illogical, and not unfrequently reckless. Such theories as these we believe to be diseases of the times, excrescences of the age, which

will have their day; but so sure as truth is great and will prevail, so surely will these subside into the limbo of exploded fallacies as time goes on and a better mind succeeds.

The remaining studies have for their subjects the Invisible, Variety in Nature, the Follies of the Wise; and the whole argument is summed up under the title of "the Kingdom of God.”

Having thus briefly analyzed the contents of the volume, we may proceed to make a few remarks upon its nature and practical utility. We confess that we laid it down with a feeling of disappointment. The book is learned, earnest, and devout. It is well aimed and comprehensive, but we doubt if it will be of practical utility; and we say this with no less of conviction than of regret. We gather from the preface that the author's aim was to promote the accord between science and revelation "by showing the correspondence between truly scientific conclusions and Holy Writ; by exposing hasty generalizations which appear contrary to revelation; and by making it plain that scientific, like spiritual truths, have ever been descending from heaven to men" (p. 10).

We regret to express our fear that these results have not been successfully attained in the book. As a work written for believers in Divine revelation, it is in every way excellent, but as one written for materialists, and the deniers of the supernatural, we believe that the work entirely fails. We consider that there are no arguments in the book which would carry any weight with this class of persons, and we do not for a moment imagine that it will make one single convert to the cause of truth. We say this with regret, because the writer's desire was otherwise; and we shall not be sorry if others take a different view, and if we should be called upon to confess ourselves mistaken. But having some experience of the professors of scientific scepticism, we gravely doubt if the arguments brought forward will meet their doubts. We need hardly say that the whole argument of the book is based upon Old Church principles; and we have seldom read a work in which the illumination afforded by New Church principles was more conspicuously needed. It is more especially in the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis that the Old Church views fail to dispel confusion, and lead to those very inconsistencies and shifts in order to arrive at what is, after all, but a lame interpretation, which are the very stronghold of doubters, and confirmation of the sceptical. The New Church view is here so comprehensive and consistent, and throws so much light upon collateral subjects, that one cannot help regretting that the day (or rather night) of prejudice is not yet over. But the time is not yet come. In reading such a book as the present, however, the gropings after truth in the obscurity of Old Church views is painful to one who holds in his hand a clue to the labyrinth, a key to the mystery,-a clue and a key which he also knows he might offer for their acceptance in vain.

The doubting and hesitating attempt to reconcile the two Divine accounts in the first and second chapters of Genesis is an example of what we mean ; and we cannot conceive of its commending itself to the judgment of a scientific doubter; nor do we think the expression, "We prefer this inter