and it could not be said that in this perfect state of things there were wanting means and authority to preserve, and even improve, its good disposition; and yet nevertheless it was under this very ecclesiastical rule, positive or negative (according to what it did or left undone), that this laity became utterly corrupted, as they say, and blinded, making the revolution, or rather becoming itself the revolution.'

Whether a change of policy on the part of the Roman Church now would avail, it is impossible to divine, any more than what is in store for Italy can be foreseen. That there are elements seething below the surface, which any day may produce a convulsion, has been recently made evident by the outrage perpetrated on the occasion of the removal of the body of Pius IX. from S. Peter's; not so much from the fact itself as from the behaviour of the Government afterwards, which we can only attribute to cowardice and terror of the mob, contemptible as from all accounts that mob seems to have been on the occasion. But one cannot forget that the cries were Viva Garibaldi and Viva la repubblica, and that Viva il re was no more heard than any respect was displayed to the remains of him who at one time was the darling of the Roman populace, and to whom, whatever were his failings, so many of the modern Roman improvements are due. The attempts to abrogate the law of guarantees give an additional reason for anxiety. The Roman Church is now reaping as she has sown; losing her hold over Italy, because with what is true she has also mixed what is false. And to the uneducated Italian all stands or falls together.

Mercy and Fudgment. By F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S. (London, 1881.)

THIS book is described in the title page as 'A few last words on Christian Eschatology,' with reference to Dr. Pusey's 'What is of Faith?' i.e. as to Everlasting Punishment; and is dedicated to 'Alfred Tennyson, Esq.,' as 'the poet of the larger hope.' Like others, indeed most, if not all, of its writer's

1 La Nuova Italia ed i vecchi zelanti, pp. 142, 143.

productions, it bears marks of hasty composition by one who is certainly a 'ready writer,' and apparently an omnivorous reader, or at least enjoys abundant facility of reference to books.

It must be regarded as a defence of the Five Westminster Abbey Sermons, published under the title Eternal Hope, and as a further and fuller exposition of Dr. Farrar's views on the great subject he has brought into prominence. It runs to considerable length (485 pages), but that is probably due to the haste with which it has been brought out. Like a hastily written or fluent extempore sermon, it is marked by diffuseness and repetition; and, for any permanent or independent value, needs pruning and correction on nearly every page, and compression throughout.

Dr. Farrar tells us that 'the publication of his book (Eternal Hope) was forced on him by shorthand reporters, who published his sermons against his will.' This can hardly be pleaded for his present defence of them. An illustration of the haste with which the book has been issued occurs on p. 35, where we read, as a quotation from Bishop Forbes on the Articles, ii. 311

The true doctrine, of which the opinion condensed in Article XIII. [sic; it should be "condemned in Article XXII."] is an exaggeration and excess, is founded on the tenderest and deepest sympathies of our human nature. Mankind will not endure the thought that at the moment of death all concern for those loved ones who are riven from us by death comes to an end. Nay, we go so far as to say that ...[here is omitted though the tree must lie as it falls, and'] though death puts an end to each man's probation, so far as he is concerned, yet the [that] Infinite love preserves [it should be "pursues"] the soul beyond the grave, and there has dealings with it.' [Bishop Forbes wrote with it, in which we who survive have still our co-operation.']

Dr. Farrar begins with a vigorous endeavour to put a new meaning on the word eternal. On his first page he says, 'I understand the word eternity in a sense far higher than can be degraded into the vulgar meaning of endlessness.' Speaking of the title of his volume of sermons, Eternal Hope, which he says was 'not of his own choosing,' he tells us he meant 'hope as regards the world to come' (just as in our form of the Nicene Creed 'eternal life' is 'the life of the world to come'). He argues, quite justly, that its meaning and that of æternus must be ruled by that of aiovios, of which it is the proper rendering; but we cannot think that in the present volume he has seriously strengthened the very slender argument,

resting chiefly on Septuagint usage, of Excursus III. to Eternal Hope, by which he would support his rather strong assertion that there is no authority whatever for rendering it "everlasting." It is on a careful consideration of the New Testament use of this word and its cognate phrases that the decision must rest. But we discussed this question in our review of the volumes on the subject of future punishment by Drs. Pusey and Goulburn, in our October number of last year, and advocated the view that while the word does not and cannot properly express the timeless existence of God, to whom alone timeless existence belongs, because it does not reach backward to cover the æternitas a parte ante, it yet does, in by far the larger number of instances of its stricter New Testament use, most indisputably cover the æternitas a parte post.

Nothing is more frequent in writings on theological subjects, or, alas! more necessary, than the protest against the mistaken and unwarrantable inferences that have been drawn, often in the most careless manner, and then repeated by one writer after another with equal carelessness, from single texts originally wholly misunderstood, or at least misapplied. The really absurd misrendering of χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται (Apoc. x. 6) has much to answer for. The unseen spiritual condition of souls and spirits, now and still more in the consummated state after the Resurrection, is often spoken of as if it were eternal, in the sense of timeless, i.e. in the sense in which the condition of the Divine existence is timeless. We think this idea wholly untenable, and indeed absurd. It is of course impossible to deal fully with the question here; but we think it demonstrable that absoluteness, infinity, superiority to the conditions of time and space, belong only to the uncreated and illimitable existence of Him who is Spirit; and that it is unreal, misleading, and mischievous to talk as if any created existence, however high and noble and blessed, could ever conceivably be 'eternal' in that sense. Beginning of existence out of nothing, materiality (of however subtle a sort), determinate localization in space, subjective but inevitable succession in thought, acquisition by successive increment-of knowledge, and growth generally in life and power, are inseparable parts of the conception, when fully worked out, of all created existence, even the very highest; and its duration in any other sense than that of prolonged succession of time, in the strictest and most proper sense of the word time, is really and truly inconceivable. Whether or not all or any shall exist endlessly is a further question, depending on further considerations. What we

protest against is the attempt to merge endless existence in the confessedly higher but unattainable timeless existence, in the endeavour, after all a vain one, to get rid of the overpowering thought of endless existence in cases where, from its association with suffering, the mind is staggered by it.

So again with another passage which is often brought forward by writers, ancient and modern, on subjects of this kind, 1 Cor. iii. 10, &c. One would have thought that a simple study of the passage, in its proper context and connexion, made it absolutely evident that S. Paul is speaking solely of the Christian teacher, of his responsibility for the soundness and durability of his work in building up those whom he teaches on the One Foundation, and of the dependence thereon of the extent of his reward, as to be tested in the fire (whatever that may mean) of the Last Day. To extend the meaning of the passage to the case of the individual souls and personal salvation of Christians, or of men in general, is an application, an accommodation, but no more; while to build upon it, as Roman Catholic writers have done, an argument in favour of a fiery purgatory in the intermediate state is simply to misapply and pervert it altogether.

Dr. Farrar, while speaking of his book as in form a reply to Dr. Pusey,' claims that in reality his conclusions are 'almost identical with his,' and 'finds himself entirely in accordance with Dr. Pusey in every essential point.' We are thankful that Dr. Farrar should express himself thus, and especially that he should decisively repudiate as he does (p. 19) the idea of 'a new trial,' 'a fresh probation,' in the future life, an idea which Dr. Pusey, in common (we should say) with most readers, considered, prior to the author's explanations, to be suggested, if not maintained, in Eternal Hope. Such an idea, by whomsoever held or advanced, we cannot but believe to be most untrue to the whole drift of Holy Scripture (not to speak of natural ethics), and morally most dangerous and mischievous, in so far as it may lead many to think lightly of the solemn and unspeakable importance of this present life, as the growing time of permanent character and of habitual set and attitude (is) of soul and self, or furnish an excuse, only too readily caught at, for yielding to strong present temptation. The secret thought, even only half admitted, that this life is not, after all, finally determinative of moral character in respect of quality, and that, even for those who 'die in their sins,' there may be opportunities of repentance and conversion beyond the grave; that men and women who to

the end (we mean, of course, not merely as it would seem to men, but in the inner reality as God sees it) have been impenitent 'lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;' may yet, after all, ultimately, and in the long-run, find their way to Him, we cannot but regard as full of moral risk, indeed of certain moral mischief of the gravest kind. We can only hope that Dr. Farrar's repudiation of it may be laid to heart by the many who have gathered some countenance for it from the language of many passages of his Eternal Hope. We are truly thankful to find that Dr. Farrar can say (p. 19), 'I can have no sort of difficulty in accepting the view of a "future purification," instead of "future probation.' In thus speaking he puts himself on the side of all Catholic theology on the subject; which would only insist, by way of further guarding the truth, that those who are to be the subjects of such 'future purification' must pass out of this life with a moral and spiritual capacity for it, i.e. with some degree of moral and spiritual life in the soul-with at least some real repentance and longing for God, such as is seen and known of God, if not by man. In saying this we should not only admit, but insist, that of the existence or non-existence of such germs of spiritual life and capacity in doubtful, or even in apparently hopeless, cases, man can be no judge at all. As a matter of necessary moral discipline among her own children, and as a means of keeping firmly before their minds, for their own sake, the broad distinction between right and wrong, between holiness and sin, the Church, we hold, ought to be much more decided than in practice she is in marking positive 'open and notorious evit living' while it lasts; and even at the grave-side in the few cases in which, to all human appearance, life is cut off in the midst of such 'evil living. But this, even were it expressed in the most marked form possible, as respects her outward dealing with cases so lamentable as compared with her attitude towards those whose lives and deaths have been Christian, ought not to be understood as expressing any judgment whatever on the Church's part as to the present relation of such apparently hopeless souls to the Eternal Father, and still less of their ultimate and final destiny. He can see that which the eye of man cannot see. He, we may be sure, will never 'break the bruised reed, or quench the smoking flax.' He will lose nothing, we may be sure, that can by any possibility be saved, none save those who by their own perverse will absolutely shut Him out from their souls, who therefore cannot, or rather will not, be saved.