bare the primitive rock. To stop half way is useless work; in everything, we must go on to the end. Therefore, while Jansenism has passed away, the destinies of the world belong to evangelical Christianity" (iii. liv. xi. ch. 9). C. de F.

XIII.-CRITICAL NOTICES.

The Unity

Ethics of Theism: a Criticism and its Vindication. By the Rev. ALEXANDER LEITCH, Author of "The Gospel and the Great Apostacy,' of the Faith," &c. Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot. 1868.

Mr

Mr Leitch is favourably known in the theological world as the author of various excellent works. His principal publications, "The Unity of the Faith," "Christian Errors Infidel Arguments," "The Gospel and the Great Apostacy," and "Heart Religion, or Living Faith in the Truth," all display literary and philosophical qualities of a high order, and give him a distinguished place among our modern Christian authors. Leitch has shewn himself an original and independent thinker, well versed in the philosophy of the day, and possessed of great metaphysical acumen. He has specially attended to modern theistic arguments, and the tactics of our living Christian apologists. He is by no means satisfied with the line of defence often adopted by the professed champions of truth in their reasonings against the atheist or the infidel. Nor is he certain that even the best of these defenders of the faith do not often injure their own cause by falling into inconsistencies, and employing fallacies in argument which their acute opponents can hardly fail to detect, and to take advantage of in defending error. In one of his more remarkable works, "Christian Errors Infidel Arguments," he does not hesitate to accuse of logical slips, and argumentative fallacies, Mr Thomson and Principal Tulloch, the two last Burnett Prize men, and even such practised Christian apologists as Isaac Taylor and Mr H. Rodgers, author of "The Eclipse of Faith." It required not a little boldness on the part of a retired country minister to break a spear or two with each of these redoubted champions in their own But Mr Leitch proved himself to be no mean antagonist, and in most instances came off best in the encounter. His noble zeal for truth is fittingly accompanied by a singular skill in detecting error. He is thus specially qualified to criticise critics, and to point out the mistakes of advocates. If his animadversions occasionally appear somewhat overstrained or hypercritical, they always proceed from a disinterested love of truth, and the strong apprehension of philosophical principle. A writer like Mr Leitch, who has in a manner made a field for himself, is much needed in these days of crude thinking and hasty writing, when even grave philosophers unwittingly make serious mistakes, and champions who profess to do battle for the truth sometimes give an important advantage to the adversary.

arena.

The work before us is perhaps the most ambitious performance Mr Leitch has yet given to the world. The first part, it is true, consists of the former work on "Christian Errors," carefully revised and retouched; but the second, and perhaps the more important part, consisting largely of a vindication of the opinions and principles propounded and applied in part first, is entirely new. Those who have read "Christian Errors Infidel

Arguments," will remember that certain important questions are there discussed in seven different dialogues, the interlocutors being Origen, a believer, Celsus, an unbeliever, and an umpire under the name of Theologus. We have never been very partial to the dialogue form of discussion. Even in the hands of Plato it is not always the most interesting or effective way of eliminating truth and exposing error. And we are bound to say that Mr Leitch displays no peculiar genius for dialogue. Though seldom deficient in philosophic, he seldom shines in dramatic power. interlocutors occasionally get wooden in his hands, not speaking like living men, but serving as mere pegs to hang thoughts upon. This, however; is a matter of comparatively small importance. The current of discussion in the dialogues is always properly sustained, and the results are often of great interest and value.

His

The following are the chief points discussed in these dialogues :-there is always, and in every matter, an irreconcilable antagonism between truth and error; there is, or should be, a constant and invariable dependence of belief or faith upon knowledge; man must be held responsible for all his beliefs, and not merely for some of them; the distinction between a mystery and a contradiction, so important in many respects, should never be lost sight of; the difference between practical and speculative knowledge, and the difference between certainties and improbabilities, should be distinctly apprehended and consistently acted on; there is a criterion of morality independently of the Bible, else those ignorant of the Bible are not accountable beings; that criterion, so important and so necessary, is, with due pains, to be discovered.

Mr Leitch, with great power, and often great subtlety of argument, affirms and defends all these propositions. In a brief notice of this kind we cannot give any proper account of his manner of treating subjects of such interest and importance, or venture to challenge the propriety or validity of any point of his lengthened argumentations. He is a man whom the reader may sometimes disagree with, but whom he will find it very difficult to confute. Even when we think him wrong, it is almost impossible to convict him of error. He has an extraordinary confidence not only in truth, but in man's ability, with due diligence and honesty, to discover truth. He seems to think that all reasonable men, were they only to try, would certainly apprehend and appreciate properly the evidences and foundations of natural and revealed religion. With him error is always man's fault, and not his misfortune. It follows from his principles that all men of average intellectual and moral powers may arrive at the same conclusions not only in regard to the divine origin of the Bible, but in regard to all its contents. Hence, under the application of his principle, and through the realisation of his views, men will be at one in religion, there will be an undivided church, and controversy itself will disappear. Given a Bible, an intellect and a conscience, only one result should emerge, one series of doctrines should be adopted, one faith maintained. This may appear Utopianism, or a far distant Optimism to many. Even the most decided and accomplished Christians may smile incredulous when they hear of such views and expectations. But it is well that a man like Mr Leitch should take the field at this moment, and proclaim, in his own way, that truth is one, and that all her followers, who ought to be all men, may, and should, be of one mind. We think that he makes too little allowance for what we may be allowed to call the inevitable infirmities of human nature, and that he need never expect to see mathematical rigour and precision exemplified universally or even generally in moral reasoning or religious investigation. The finest intellect is, after all, but a prism more or less coloured; and when moral or religious questions are concerned, the infirmities of the flesh, the prepossessions of the mind, will appear. How seldom can Mr Leitch's ideal of inquiry and investigation be realised.

Men will surely cease to be fallen and fallible men when they all sit down honestly to the solution of the same great moral and religious problems, and all arrive at the same conclusions. Yet, let the ideal of a search after philosophical and religious truth be persistently held up to the world, and especially to Christendom, by philosophers like Mr Leitch, who nobly trust in truth, and believe that she is discoverable by all reasonable men, who act reasonably.

We have hardly room even to characterise the original portion of this volume, which is mainly devoted to a discussion of the great question, What is the criterion in morals? We think it remarkably able, and on the whole, successful as an argument; a valuable contribution to ethical science. We commend it, therefore, to the best attention of theologians and philosophers of every class, of all, in short, who can appreciate the philosophic discussion of great questions bearing directly upon morality and religion. We can also speak highly of Mr Leitch's style. It is an admirably clear and correct medium of his thoughts; elegant and spirited; not without ornament and graceful allusion, and well sustained in its strength and smoothness. Such a clear and acute thinker cannot fail to express himself with power and perspicuity.

The Doctrine of the Atonement, as Taught by Christ Himself; or, The Sayings of Jesus on the Atonement Exegetically Expounded and Classified. By Rev. GEORGE SMEATON, Professor of Exegetical Theology, New College, Edinburgh. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1868.

We attach very great value to this seasonable and scholarly production. The idea of the work is most happy, and the execution of it is worthy of the idea. Over against that very indefinite and elastic thing called the "Christian consciousness," as a standard or gage of the doctrine of the Atonement, Professor Smeaton places Christ's own consciousness, as revealed by his own immediate personal utterances in the Gospels; and from these, on a scheme of truly Baconian exegetical induction, he presents us with a complete view of the various positions or propositions which a full and sound doctrine of the Atonement embraces.

A volume devoted to the discussion of this great doctrine, from this particular point of view, ought surely to be at the present day very acceptable. There are a great number of earnest minds at present to whom systematic theology presents the aspect of a dry, frigid, starched, and mummy-like object of contemplation; and hence a true, if formal, dogmatic has not the same probability of commending itself to them, as a false and arbitrary scheme of thought, provided it have an aspect of freshness and liveliness about it, which they think Puritanical orthodoxy incapable of assuming. Now this volume seems to meet the case of such, provided only they are earnest and honest. It is Biblical and exegetical. It appeals directly to Scripture, and it confines the discussion to a department of Scripture which those who dislike cut and dry systems of doctrine are peculiarly fond of. As for them, they have little favour for the doctrinal parts of the Epistles; and views of the Atonement derived from them, they set aside, to a great extent, on the ground that the style and cast of thought is Pauline," Pauline" being with them a very elastic adjective, and coming ultimately to mean, in such connections, "something which ought not to be any further attended to." As for them, they wish to be allowed to study Christianity as it appears in the four Gospels, with their simplicity, freshness, and directness of historical incident, and their natural and unforced utterances of spiritual truth. Whether they are altogether wise in this is another matter; but in this volume they ought at least to admit

The Doctrine of the Atonement.

651

that they are dealt with according to their own wish. In all the fortyeight sections of which the work consists, there is not a single view given of the death of our Lord that is not educed from some expression of his own concerning it. And when we think that the very object of our Lord's living on earth at all, was that he might die,—that that object was continually present to his consciousness; that he was a sin-bearer not only in his last moments, and in articulo mortis, but a sin-bearer all his life long, and in every action he performed, and in every word he uttered,-we may well expect to find, in his various utterances, intimations of the meaning, nature, intention, and effect of his death as an atonement for sin, and as the culminating of a sin-bearing life, sufficient to present us, if not with a formal, at least with the materials for a very full view of the doctrine of his death as the surety and substitute for sinners.

It is a fundamental want, and becomes a positive rear sudes in the schemes of those who are at present opposing the catholic evangelical doctrine of Atonement, that they never view the death of Christ as a voluntary act of his own, but merely as an endurance to which he willingly submitted. If they would only face, though as a mere hypothesis, the idea of Christ having died actively, "obedient unto death," they would be in circumstances to come to some competent decision on the truth or falseness of the orthodox doctrine. For if Christ died in the discharge of an official duty; if his death not merely occurred in the path of duty, but was itself the actual discharge of a duty, then his official act and his official position force on an examination into the nature of the office which he fulfils, or is said to fulfil; the relation in which he stands to him who appointed him, and to whom, of course, he is responsible; the terms of his appointment, and its period; the scope and design of the office in its general character and specific bearings; the other duties, besides that of dying at Calvary, which the office may involve; the satisfaction, or gratification, to speak reverently, which his discharge of it may have yielded, and may be for ever yielding, to him to whom he is responsible; and indeed a whole host of topics which in this line of thought inevitably present themselves. In short, they would find themselves shut up,-by every principle applicable, in any case, to the consideration of the history and circumstances of any official act or duty,—to find, and, finding, to frame, some such code of truths as evangelical divines are accustomed to denominate "the covenant of grace." We are by no means tied to a phrase. Give us a better, and we will not cling to this one. Give us any serviceable designation for what we are manifestly compelled in some form to express, and we have no such theological prudery as would din into the ears of hyper-sensitive people the old Puritan phraseology. We know Foster's "Essay on the aversion of men of taste to evangelical religion," and we remember the large (the somewhat too large) place which, in accounting for that aversion, he assigns to the use of peculiar language. And if the realities of divine truth are conserved, we do not insist on our own forms of expressing them. What we contend for is, that some such expression as the "covenant of grace' is needed to indicate the result of such investigations as must be prosecuted the moment we entertain the idea that Christ's death was an act which he accomplished in the fulfilment of official duty. Take this as, at first, a mere hypothesis, and, in the light of it, let a truly Baconian induction of the import of Christ's own sayings concerning his death be carried out, and what we affirm is that, on the analogy of all modern legitimate scientific investigation, the result of unforced Biblical and exegetical examination will be, that we must arrive at substantially the doctrine of the covenant of grace, or of the federal theology, with Christ's death as the seal of the covenant, and in a real and valid sense, the price of our forgiveness and of all our spiritual blessings.

This is what Professor Smeaton's work enables us to do. It does not

build up a system; it gives us materials to build with. By rare insight into trains of thought; by minutely accurate exegesis; by severely legitimate method, always amenable to rule, and always guarding against the capricious and the arbitrary, never straining to educe or support a foregone conclusion; by taking out of the text what is in it, never tempted to take more, this very able theologian has presented us with an amount of truth on the doctrine of the Atonement, directly from the lips of the Great Deliverer himself, which has positively startled us by its amount, and delighted us by its consistency and its completeness.

We should have been glad to give several specimens of the author's method of investigation, but the limits of a brief notice of this description forbid. Let two passages suffice; the one bringing out so beautifully the import of the MUST in the memorable assertion, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up;" the other, on substantially the same topic, "the necessity of satisfaction to divine justice," extracted from a most valuable essay in the appendix:

"The MUST here expressed, bringing out what is indispensable, is not to be limited to the mere carrying out of the type, but has a deeper ground in God's purpose of redemption, and in order to finish the curse. That the punishment of sin must be borne and exhausted on the cross, was already indicated centuries before by the brazen serpent raised upon the pole. Plainly, the necessity here alluded to is a deep, inner necessity. It is not due merely to the fact that it was foreshadowed; rather it was foreshadowed because it must needs take place on moral grounds. Though the faithfulness of God must be maintained in carrying out the types and prophecies, it was not they that conditioned the crucifixion, but conversely the deep necessity in the moral government of God that threw back its shadow upon them. As the punitive justice of God, or the necessity for the atonement, with the evidence that goes to establish it in our Lord's teaching, has been noticed in a previous section of this volume, we forbear to adduce the evidence which goes to illustrate it. Let it suffice to say, that the MUST here uttered by our Lord is connected with the communication of divine life and perfect healing, and that "no cross, no healing" is the purport of this testimony. When sin entered into the world, God's moral perfections rendered it indispensably necessary that it should receive its recompense of reward, and that a satisfaction for sin should be required before divine life could be diffused through the race. The Most High owes this to himself, it being a MUST in the divine government as well as a necessary provision for the relief of mental anxiety and dread. He owes this to himself, because he loveth righteousness (Ps. xi. 7). It was not brought about to make a mere impression on the moral universe, in order to deter them from sin; and as little was it done because God was acting before a vast public, composed of all spiritual intelligences. The necessity of punishment, and of expiation, is irrespective of any aims or considerations that refer to a public apart from himself. His perfections are the only public before which he acts; and he punishes sin only because of the demerit of it, as calling for punishment, and because he is under obligation to himself, or, in other words, from love to his rectitude, which is just love to himself (Ps. xi. 7). This punitive retribution is commonly called vengeance; and the Most High claims it as his own prerogative: "Vengeance is mine: I will repay" (Rom. xii. 19; Deut. xxxii. 35). Hence, when moral evil has been committed, natural evil, suited to it, must needs ensue; and we may lay down with confidence the position, that the creatures of God, in the moral government of God's world, suffer only what is due, and never more than their due. Hence, to bear this infliction in a manner which should expiate the sin and exhaust the curse, was the reason of Christ's crucifixion, and gives the explanation of the MUST which he here expresses." (Pp. 224-5.)