In the Essay on Tradition, Mr. Fitzgerald examines the scriptural texts adduced by Mr. Keble, to prove that previous to the completion of the canon of the New Testament, there was a received Code of Apostolic Traditions,' well known and recognized by all Christian churches as their rule of faith and morals. Were this ever so true, it would avail us little, unless Mr. Keble could furnish us with a genuine copy of this code; which of course will then be added to the received canon of Scripture. The texts, 1 Tim. i. 18, vi. 20, are easily and satisfactorily vindicated by Mr. Fitzgerald, by showing that in 1 Tim. i. 3, 5, and vi. 13, we have the same commandment and charge laid on Timothy by the apostles, without any such formal notion as Mr. Keble would have us believe. On 2 Tim. i. 12, 14, which Mr. Keble selected for his text, Mr. F. remarks:

Here, not only is the word in question [that good deposit"] referred to special instruction given to Timothy, but used so little in any technical appropriation of meaning, that it is applied, in the verse immediately preceding, to quite a different subject, viz., the apostle's own soul.'

We do not regard this interpretation as quite certain; for the verse may be understood: "I am persuaded that he is able to 'keep my deposit [i. e. the gospel which has been committed to 'me] without spot and unrebukeable, until that day.' Compare 1 Tim. iv. 14. Yet the comments of Mr. Keble are any way quite unsubstantial. The deposit' spoken of, was to be kept by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us,' and was lost out of the church just in proportion as the Spirit was lost. The same is true at the present day.

Mr. Fitzgerald startles us by his boldness of assertion concerning the canon of Scripture; a boldness which reminds us of the blind enthusiasm of his opponents. He declares, p. 30, The canon of the 'Holy Scriptures (notwithstanding all the wrong-headed para'doxes of Dodwell) has been often shown to have been completed, and recognized throughout the churches, before the death of St. John.' This would be to ourselves a most interesting fact, and certainly would diminish the cares of controversy, if true; but whatever acquaintance we have with church history, leads us to fear that it must be looked on as only the rash assertion of a controversialist, and out of harmony with the writer's general spirit. Certainly neither Origen, Dionysius, Eusebius, nor Jerome were aware of this universal concord of the churches on the subject.

To the objection that tradition is the only ground on which we believe the genuineness and authenticity of the sacred Scrip'tures,' Mr. F. replies (p. 35)- True: tradition is the prin'cipal ground upon which we believe these facts, and when they

'produce to us a tradition so circumstanced and verified as to other facts, we shall believe them also no less firmly.' It is wonderful how this old Romish fallacy, reproduced by the Nicenists, is able to perplex minds not generally deficient in acuteness. The term tradition seems to be purposely selected for its vagueness, in order to confound valid external evidence with

mere rumour.

One favorite assertion by which the Nicenists would terrify us is, that without tradition we cannot prove the doctrine of the Trinity! Against this Mr. Fitzgerald enters a protest, declaring that 'the 'doctrine is capable of a proof from the Bible, far simpler, easier, and more evident,' than any argument drawn from the Fathers. We hardly know a greater instance of infatuation in the Nicenists than this. Are they, indeed, ignorant, that English Christians, therefore believe the doctrine, because they apprehend it to be authoritatively revealed in the genuine apostolic writings? Do they suppose that they can bring us to rely on that most shadowy and flimsy of supports, oral tradition, by denying that the doctrine of the Trinity is capable of scriptural proof? ought they not to see that they are doing their best to undermine our belief in the doctrine itself?

Mr. Keble has endeavored to support Vincentius's criterion of sound doctrine (antiquity, universality, and catholicity), by arguing that it is by such tests that Jurists determine the common or unwritten laws of any realm. To this Mr. Fitzgerald replies, that in civil courts, it is not abstract truth, but public convenience, which regulates the practice; so that there is no analogy between the cases. Against Vincentius's test, he objects* also that it really means nothing; for if antiquity is to be considered, the highest antiquity is that of the apostles, and the appeal is really to their genuine writings. And this we apprehend is the readiest and adequate answer to that shallow sophism.

Mr. Fitzgerald proceeds to comment on the well known want of judgment which the Fathers' show in the interpretation of Scripture, and the 'ridiculous principles' on which they proceed. În 'point of fact,' he says, it is notorious that the earliest Fathers, 'such as Barnabas, Clemens, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and Origen, are the most intolerable and fantastic expositors; while the later, "who went upon the principles of common sense, are much to be 'preferred, as Chrysostom, Gregory, Basil, and above all, Theo

*Professor Powell, in his Tradition Unveiled,' puts the objection into this form. Vincentius pronounces that that those doctrines are the catholic faith, which have been always and everywhere held by all orthodox persons ;' a mere truism, useless for ascertaining the character of a doctrine; for it recurs, Who are orthodox?

'doret.' At this we somewhat hesitate. Theodoret is a good name; the other three, in common with their contemporaries, have many extravagancies of error far beyond the earlier fathers. Both the one and the other, however (except Clemens Romanus), are so bad, that we allow it is very difficult to choose between them.

Mr. Fitzgerald winds up his disavowal of the authority of tradition by a spirited passage from Bishop Jeremy Taylor. It must, indeed, be trying to the Nicenists to find their dearest friends thus quoted against them! Bp. Cosin, Saunderson, Hall, have been already adduced on his side, and now, alas, Bishop Taylor. One remark may possibly here shelter them. This divine wrote his book on the Liberty of Prophesying while the Puritans were in power; and being himself interdicted from public preaching, he learned for the time liberal principles, which ill suit the thrones of bishops.

We proceed to the Essay on the Sacraments. Mr. Fitzgerald comments on a singular point, in which the Nicenists display affection for an oft-refuted Puritan error, viz., that divine origination equalizes precepts; by help of which they would make church ceremonies as important as righteousness, peace, and love.

So strangely,' he says, 'do some men contrive to put things together, the circumstance of the gospel's being the LAW of LIBERTY has been made the foundation for enforcing a punctilious ceremonialism; and certain warm admirers of antiquity in these Tracts for the Times' would fain persuade us that the main difference between the two dispensations consists in the greater difficulty of discovering the precise requirements of the Christian ritual; the vagueness of its promulgation being compensated by the zeal of its subjects, to discover and comply with its prescriptions (see Vol. i. No. 8, 45); while the acknowledgment that the epistles were not written to prescribe and enforce the ritual of religion,' is, with equal perverseness, made a reason for looking for it in the gaudy pageants of the church of the fourth century. p. 43.

In expounding the scriptural doctrine of the Lord's Supper, we think Mr. Fitzgerald rightly insists that there is no difference of sense between the phrase voynoas, having blessed it,' and suxapornoaç, having given thanks.' The latter occurs Matt. xxvi. 27, and Luke xxii. 19. Accordingly, the cup of blessing' is equivalent to the cup of eucharist,' that is, of thanksgiving; and with this simple remark the vast structure raised upon the notion of consecrating the elements, falls to the ground.

Yet we think he himself presently makes a fatal concession to his opponents, while wishing to choose a judicious Via Media, in contending for the proper efficacy of the sacraments." Slippery gound, in truth, for one who has given his unfeigned

6

'assent and consent to the USE' of the liturgy! We are satisfied that there is here no middle way. He alleges that in baptism our pardon is sealed to us,' and that in the holy supper the Lord has promised that his body and blood, in all their sacrifi'cial virtue and life-giving efficacy, shall be present to the mind of the worthy receiver of it.' This last statement appears to us like a truism; viz., that the Lord's death shall be viewed by faith in the mind of him who partakes of the supper with intelligent faith; for this is a main part of worthiness. But let us consider what this sacramental sealing' of the promises can mean, to which so many good men cling. It seems that God somehow confirms his promise (either making it surer, or applying it to ourselves personally), by our participation. Yet evidently no act of our own can be a confirmation of his promise. It must be something done or said to us, on his part, in the ordinance, that has this effect; and this can only be if he have some representative (a priest, in short) ministering to us in his name; a person who can speak to us with authority. Thus the 'proper efficacy of the sacraments' naturally allies itself to priestly pretensions, and these, with apostolic succession. Mr. Fitzgerald is unwilling to degrade the sacraments to the rank of mere significant emblems; but if this is degradation, Dr. Pusey may equally maintain that our author is 'degrading the sacraments' in stopping short where he does. For (we are glad to add) the latter maintains against Dr. Pusey, that the sacramental participation of 'Christ is the same as that out of the sacrament;' and alleges the language in John vi. by way of proof. But in truth, as long as the word 'sacrament' is allowed to stand, superstitious notions will always recur. It is ever used as a vehicle for insinuating as much absurdity as the times will bear.

6

To his own views of Baptism, Mr. Fitzgerald annexes an exposé of Dr. Pusey's doctrine of baptismal regeneration; which he finally sums up thus:

That it is only in baptism that our sins can be forgiven, and the Holy Ghost imparted to us; that the visible church is crowded with men once regenerate, but fallen from their first love, who have no means left them to which a promise of forgiveness is attached, and who would be wholly without all glimpse of hope if the Fathers had not kindly discovered a path through penitence and maceration, by which, if they do not obtain eternal life, they may at least earn a

FREEDOM FROM PUNISHMENT.'

Against this dreadful error and its monstrous results, he expresses himself with becoming indignation. Indeed, throughout the whole tract it is refreshing to feel, that, with little care for technical divinity, he has a keen sense that the forensic doctrine'

of justification contains a deep and vital truth at bottom, which the Nicenists utterly destroy; a doctrine which fixes the sinner's eye on something beyond himself as the ground of hope, peace, and joy; which revives the heart of the contrite, and preaches to the backslider some better gospel, than the prospect of maceration and misery in this world with entire uncertainty as to the next.

In his postscript on Fundamentals, Mr. Fitzgerald brings a serious but just charge against his opponents, that their arguments lay a broad foundation for universal scepticism. It is habitual with them, by appealing to human ignorance to reject the probable conclusions of human reason; which (he observes) in the hands of Hume or Boyle, would prove subversive of all moral evidence soever. The question concerning Fundamentals, he continues, is one which we become involved with rather in our social, than in our individual capacities. Each of us is bound to believe and act upon all that is true, whether it be fundamental or not. But when a society has to settle the terms of communion, then the question arises, which doctrines are fundamental? And he here excellently lays down, that the burden of proof' that any particular doctrine is so, lies with the affirmer.' For, primâ facie, our duty is to receive as fellow Christians all who, professing themselves to be such, live consistently with that profession. From hence it appears, that we are in much greater danger of adding to, than of diminishing from, our catalogue of essentials.' He proceeds eloquently to set forth the great prominence given by the apostles to the doctrine of the atonement, and to contrast it with the (new and old) Nicene doctrine, which deprecates 'the 'naked exposure of so very sacred a truth.'

We must in conclusion say, that we have had much pleasure in reading this pamphlet, although, as our remarks show, we cannot tie ourselves to its opinions; and that we heartily hope its sentiments will be re-echoed among a large body of English as well as of Irish clergy.

Art. III. The Oration of Demosthenes upon the Crown. Translated into English, with Notes and the Greek Text, with various Readings selected from Wolff, Taylor, Reiske, and others. By HENRY LORD BROUGHAM, F.R.S., and Member of the National Institute of France. London: Charles Knight. 1840.

IT T has been said, that in order to apprehend and to relish the beauties of poetry, a man must be a poet himself; and every one will allow that he at least must have a poetic feeling. It