butes of matter. The fundamental attribute of matter is resistance. The fundamental sense shows itself as a faculty of responding to resistance.-P. 245.

We quote not these passages to depreciate Mr. Spencer's style, believing it, as we do, to be about the best possible expression of his thought; but to expose the odd caprice which selects a particular book as the object of an ad captandum style of criticism. Upon this subject of new terms Professor Mansel well says:

For the phraseology which I have occasionally been compelled to employ in the course of the following remarks, no apology will be required by those acquainted with the history of mental science. In no branch of study is it so necessary to observe the Aristotelian precept, ὀνοματοποιεῖν σαφηνείας ἕνεκεν, to manufacture words for the sake of clearness. Nine tenths of the confusion and controversy that have existed in this department are owing to that unwillingness to innovate in matters of language, which leads to the employment of the same term in various shades of meaning, and with reference to various phenomena of consciousness. In this respect philosophy is under deep obligations to the purism of German writers, which has enabled subsequent thinkers to examine the most important problems of psychology apart from the old associations of language. A new phraseology may occasion some little difficulty at the outset of a work; but to adhere to an inadequate vocabulary merely because its expressions are established, is to involve the whole of the subject in hopeless confusion and obscurity.

THE BOSTON REVIEW, July, 1864. (Boston.) 1. The Relations of Sin and Atonement to Infant Salvation. 2. The Publication of Free Descriptions of Vice. 3. The Rabbies, the Mischna, and the Talmuds, and their Aid in New Testament Studies. 4. Huxley on Man's Place in Nature. 5. Teachings of the Rebellion. 6. Pascal. 7. Short Ser

mons.

The most candid and manly notice, on the whole, of Whedon on the Will is furnished by this able organ of Old School Calvinism in New England. We note a few of its points.

The reviewer holds that our concession to Edwards of an unsurpassed "acuteness of intellect," not as an umpire but as an "advocate," and as "about the acutest advocate' that ever formed a special plea," being to be a "belittling" of and "a fling at an opponent." We regret to be so interpreted. So far from intending a "belittling" of an opponent, our purpose was, while exercising our right to deal with the fallacies of Edwards just as we would with the fallacies of anybody else, to secure the retention of the profoundest yet most consistent respect for his unsurpassed acuteness of intellect.

Again, the reviewer remarks that "to have shown some difficulties in the Edwardian doctrine is not to have demonstrated its falseness. To find or drill cracks in a wall is not to build a stronger one." That is a just remark. But have we merely found cracks in the wall? Notwithstanding the subdued language of our preface, is not our work thoroughly (we do not now say validly) both destructive and constructive? Do we not, in our Part First, state our system as at issue with the opposite; in our Second, prosecute an exhaustive, refutation

of the entirety of the opposing argument; and in our Third, establish our affirmative argument? If our argument be valid (which is not now the question) it sweeps cleanly the entire ground, in order to occupy it with a positive structure.

Again, the reviewer objects to our coupling Edwards with Hobbes. Did he ever see any injustice in such classifications by Edwards as "Arminian, Pelagian, or Epicurean," and "Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, Jesuits, Socinians, Arminians, and others"? Did he see anything uncandid in Dr. Pond's classification of "Arminians, Pelagians, and infidels?" That we coupled the names of Hobbes and Edwards with no ungenerous animus, is clear from the fact that while we discuss Hobbes extensively, and see no difference in his doctrine of necessity in itself and that of Edwards, we do in no case in our work use a single expression reflecting odium from Hobbes upon Edwards. The only apparent exception to this is where, in selfdefense against Edwards's including freedomism with atheism, we show that the freedomist and the atheist is never the same man, but that the atheist is always a necessitarian. And this we did, not by way of retort, nor without disclaiming all invidious classification of infidels with our Calvinistic friends, but to illustrate to the latter, by a reciprocal dealing, how wise it is to disuse such classifications. Again, the reviewer, perhaps with no purpose of "a fling at an opponent," or "effort at belittling," is pleased to say that there is "nothing particularly new" in the work. And as the author had said in his preface that he "would not offer this treatise to the public did not he believe he had furnished some new thoughts," did we concede the reviewer's denial of "anything new," we should pronounce our book undeserving publication. Our reply is this. In our earlier days, when once charged with plagiary in a certain production, we offered our accuser fifty dollars to produce the original, and so at once vindicated our character and saved our money. To this critic we might with equal safety, doubling the sum for every passage, take up some hundreds of pages of the work and say, "please produce the originals." We omit all reference to a multiplicity of minute yet important points in the work, such as special definitions, which often form the key to entire arguments, and little points of explanation that elucidate whole areas. We might offer him a tempting premium to furnish any such analysis of freedom as is found in Chapter II, Part First; or (with exceptions stated in the book) any such treatment of Particular Volition as is furnished in pages 88-104; or any such refutation of Edwards's Infinite Series as in pages 121-128; or any such definition of Motive Force with such application of the definition as rives through the very heart of Edwards's book, as are furnished in

pages 128-163; or any such riddling of the entire theory of Moral Inability as in pages 239-266; or any such demolition of Edwards's maxim of Responsibility as in pages 396-407; or any such exposure of Edwards's appalling theory of the divine Authorship of Sin as in pages 427–436. Neither the positions taken, nor the substance or the shaping of the argument, can be fairly produced in any previous work. There is indeed a sense in which it might be said that neither this work nor Edwards's furnished "anything new." Hobbes and Collins taught the same necessitarianism as Edwards, with the same general arguments. Dugald Stewart remarks: "It is remarkable how completely Collins has anticipated Dr. Jonathan Edwards."—Appendix to Moral Powers, Sec. V. Edwards did not create a new necessitarianism, as we have not created a new freedomism. And yet that Edwards's work was "particularly new" who doubts? And if the reviewer can see nothing similarly new in the present volume, we promptly tell him he needs an undistorted pair of spectacles.

Finally, the reviewer doubts "if it carries much conviction to any who are not already persuaded of its correctness." We entertain a similar doubt. Books and arguments do not convince self-committed opponents, though they shape the minds of inquiring multitudes. If the reviewer will note the concluding paragraph of our preface he will find several classes specified, for whom the work can scarcely be considered as written. We believe that the exclusion of necessitarianism and predestination from the circle of Christian theology (as was the case in the primitive Church) would be a great advance in Christian truth and holiness. Yet we cannot affirm a belief that any argument can remove them from the minds of the Boston reviewers or of their class, or that its removal would make them holier men or more efficient workmen in the cause of Christ. Yet when these learned and able Christian brethren on the opposite side concede the work to be "a very able defense of the metaphysical ground of the Arminian theology," they pronounce it a complete success. It will convert no immediate opponent. It will form and modify the views of countless thousands. It will be a contribution to the basis of the theology of the evangelical Church of the future; a basis, that is, for the restoration of the Church to the best theology of the primitive ages.

English Reviews.

BRITISH AND FOREIGN EVANGELICAL REVIEW, July, 1864. (London.)— 1. Historical Sketch of the Later German Philosophy. 2. Inspiration. 3. The Church under the Christian Emperors. 4. The Imprecatory Psalms. 5. Mediatorial Sovereignty. 6. The Danish Hymnology. 7. Lyman Beccher, D.D. 8. The Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel.

9. Froude's History of England. 10. Egyptology, Oriental Travel and Discovery. 11. Biblical and Miscellaneous Intelligence. 12. German Theological Literature.

BRITISH QUARTERLY REVIEW, July, 1864. (London.)-1. The Pentateuch and the "Higher Criticism." 2. Alpine Experiences. 3. Lewes on Aristotle's Scientific Writings. 4. The English Post-Office. 5. Kingsley and Newman-Romanism in England. 6. The British Navy, Past and Present. 7. Laurence Sterne. 8. Frescoes of the Houses of Parliament. 9. The English Writers before Chaucer. 10. The Life of Christ-Ebrard and Lange.

CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER, July, 1864. (London.)-1. The Church of St. Patrick. 2. Textual Criticism of the New Testament. 3. The Burial Service. 4. Cornewall Lewis on the Administrations of Great Britain, 1783-1830. 5. Tacitus and his Translators. 6. Dr. Newman's Apology. 7. Marsh on the Origin and History of the English Language. 8. Finlay's Greek Revolution.

LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW, Wesleyan,) July, 1864. (London.)1. Forsyth's Life of Cicero. 2. Gibraltar. 3. Thackeray and Modern Fiction. 4. Hannah's Bampton Lecture. 5. Our Mother Tongue. 6. The Picture of the Present Year. 7. Recent Theological Translations. JOURNAL OF SACRED LITERATURE AND BIBLICAL RECORD, July, 1864. (London.)-1. Eccentricities of Hymnology: Early Moravian Hymn Books. 2. Exegesis of Difficult Texts. 3. Standard Edition of the English New Testament of the Genevan Version. 4. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. 5. Contributions to Modern Ecclesiastical History, No. IV; Chronicles of the Congregation of Lysa. 6. Thoughts on Genesis ix, 6, in Relation to Capital Punishment. 7. The Jews and the Talmud after the Time of Christ. 8. The Vocation of the Preacher. 9. Æthiopic Prayers, etc. 10. The Eucharist: Greek, Latin, and Angli11. An Old Account of the Strauss Controversy. 12. The Encomium of the Martyrs. An Inedited Oration of Eusebius of Cesarea. NORTH BRITISH REVIEW, May, 1864. (New York, reprint.)—1. Lord Elgin.-In Memoriam. 2. A Fortnight in Faroe. 3. Energy. 4. Mr. Trollope's Novels. 5. Day-Dreams of a Schoolmaster. 6. Christian Missions. 7. The Old Anglo-Scottish Dialects. 8. Rambles in the Deserts of Syria. 9. Sporting Books. 10. Our Foreign Policy. WESTMINSTER REVIEW, July, 1864. (New York: reprint.)-1. Public Schools in England. 2. Novels with a Purpose. 3. Liberal French Protestantism. 4. Mr. Lewes's Aristotle. 5. The Tenure of Land. 6. Dr. Newman and Mr. Kingsley. 7. Edmond About on Progress. 8. Thackeray.

.can.

German Reviews.

DORPATER ZEITSCHRIFT FUR THEOLOGIE UND KIRCHE. (Dorpat Journal of Theology. Second Number.) 1. LUTHARD, Contributions to Dogmatics. 2. EBERHARD, What teaches Holy Writ on the Condition of the Soul between Death and Resurrection. 3. EICHHORN, The Struggle for the Re-establishment of Lutheranism in Baden. 4. GRUNER, A Voice in the Eastern Church on the Western Churches. 5. LUTKENS, Two Champions of Ecclesiastical Progress in the Baltic Provinces.

Fourth Number.)

STUDIEN UND KRITIKEN. (Essays and Reviews. 1. SACK, On J. J. Spalding as an Author. 2. BAUSMAN, Catechetics. 3. LAURENT, The Epistles of the Apostle Paul. 4. ENGELHARDT, On Mark ix, 9-13.

ZEITSCHRIFT FUR WISSENSCHAFTLICHE THEOLOGIE. (Journal of Scientific Theology. Edited by Prof. Hilgenfeld, of Jena.) First Number, 1862.-1. HILGENFELD, Catholicism and Protestantism, on occasion of the Tercentenary Commemoration of the Council of Trent. 2. LIPSIUS, On the Ophitic Systems. 3. BARMANN, Reply to Dr. Lipsius [on Gnosticism.] 4. GENSLER, The Death-Day of Polycarp of Smyrna, calculated from the cotemporaneous Easter Sabbath. 5. SPIEGEL, Hermann Bonnus [one of the German Reformers of the Sixteenth Century] on the Lord's Supper. 6. HILGENFELD, The Codex Sinaiticus. 7. PAUL, A Reply to Dr. Strauss [on the Resurrection of Jesus.] 8. HILGENFELD, A Postscript to the recent discussion [between Dr. Strauss and Paul] on the Resurrection of Christ. 9. LABES, An Unprinted Apology of Andreas Bodenstein of Carlstadt, relative to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Second Number. 10. HILGENFELD, Dr. Baur's Critical Primitive History of Christianity and its most recent Opponents. 11. EGLI, Hitzig's Commentary to the Psalms. 12. HILGENFELD, The Conversion and Apostolic Vocation of Paul. 13. OVERBECK, The socalled Scholia of Ecumenius on the Revelation. 14. TISCHENDORF, A Correction [to the article of Hilgenfeld in the preceding number of this Journal on the Codex Sinaiticus.] 15. HILGENFELD, Another Remark on the Codex Sinaiticus. 16. EGLI, The Name of the Butterfly among the Hebrews. 17. HILGENFELD, The todos of Peter and Paul in Irenæus, advers. hæres. iii, 1, 1.

In the sixth article Professor Hilgenfeld discusses the age of the celebrated Codex Sinaiticus, whose discovery and publication by Professor Tischendorf has made so great a stir in the theological world. The Professor fixed the origin of the Codex in the fourth century, the time of Eusebius, and therefore regards it as even more ancient than the Codex Vaticanus. Hilgenfeld contests the force of the arguments adduced for this assertion. He denies that the beauty and form of the uncial letters points to the fourth century, and remarks that a distinguished paleographist places the Writing of the Codex from paleographic reasons, as he [Hilgenfeld] has done from critical, in the sixth century. Tischendorf refers to the peculiar orthography, declension, conjugation, and syntax of the language of the Codex Sinaiticus, which violates all rules of the Greek grammar; but Hilgenfeld insists that such a deviation from the classic Greek might not only have occurred in a later period than the fourth century, but that these very peculiarities of the Codex produce the impression of its having been copied at a time when the knowledge of the classic Greek was declining, and that it is on that account quite plausible that the monks of the monastery of Sinai, which was founded in 536, were the copyists. The weightiest argument for an older origin of the Codex, as Professor Hilgenfeld admits, is the peculiar