Two considerations dispose us to adopt the latter of these interpretations: (1) the direction in the same Rubric (differing in this respect from the corresponding English Rubric), that the Table shall stand at the uppermost part of the Chancel or Church, viewed in connection with the efforts of Archbishop Laud, the chief English Reviser of this Prayer-Book, to establish, as an invariable rule, the altar-wise position of the Table; and (2) the positive assertions as to the identity of North side and North end, made by Heylin, "the intimate friend and chaplain" (according to Dr. Littledale) of the Archbishop, in the year following that of the Revision of the Scotch Prayer-Book, and the acquiescence shortly afterwards of the Archbishop himself (as we have already seen) in the same interpretation.

(To be continued.)

CHRISTLIEB ON MODERN DOUBT AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF.

Modern Doubts and Christian Belief. A Series of Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest Seekers after Truth, by Theodore Christlieb, D.D., University Preacher and Professor of Theology at Bonn. Translated, with the Author's Sanction, chiefly by the Rev. H. U. Weitbrecht, Ph.D., and Edited by the Rev. T. L. Kingsbury, M.A., Vicar of Easton Royal, and Rural Dean. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1874.

Modern Infidelity, and the Best Methods of Counteracting it. A Paper read at the New York Conference of the Evangelical Alliance, by Theodore Christlieb, &c. &c. (as above.) Translated by Herbet U. Weitbrecht, Ph. D. Revised Edition, with a Preface by the Very Rev. R. Payne Smith, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. Elliot Stock. 1874.

NEARLY half a century has elapsed since the late Mr. Hugh James Rose, in a series of Discourses preached before the University of Cambridge, directed the attention of his audience to a subject then little understood in England, viz. the nature, and incidentally the causes, of the recent Rationalistic movement in Germany. These discourses appeared for the first time in print in the year 1825, and were reprinted in London in 1828. In the latter of these years Dr. Pusey, then a Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, published the first part of a work entitled "An Historical Enquiry into the probable Causes of the Rationalist Character lately predominant in the Theology of Germany," to which work was prefixed a letter from Professor Sach on the discourses of Mr. Rose, addressed to the writer. The general Vol. 73.-No. 439.

3Z

character and design of this early production by Dr. Pusey, as also of the second part of the same work, published in the year 1830, with a view to vindicate the opinions expressed in Part I. from the misconceptions of Mr. Rose, when viewed in connexion with the subsequent course and present position of Dr. Pusey, are not a little remarkable; and we think that a brief outline of the general drift of these volumes will prove the most suitable introduction to the remarks which we shall have occasion to make upon the subject and the execution of Professor Christlieb's able and interesting contribution to our stock of Christian Apologetics.

One of the results of the Reformation in Germany, as in other countries, was the composition of Declarations of Faith, put forth by the Reformers in the first instance, chiefly with the view of silencing the calumnies of their opponents. These declarations were, in the case of the Lutheran Church, unusually bulky; and, as will readily be conceived from their controversial design, not exactly adapted to be employed as rules of faith. They consist of the Augsburgh Confession, of Melancthon's elaborate defence of that Confession, of the Articles of Smalcald, the two Catechisms of Luther, and the Formula Concordiæ. Before the middle of the sixteenth century, subscription to the whole of this mass of symbolical theology was exacted from all candidates for Holy Orders, or for any degree in Divinity. Whatever may have been the first attempt to relax the rigour of the terms of subscription, it is certain that at least as early as the time of Spener (who, according to Dr. Pusey, did not originate, but was called upon to decide, the controversy between the quia and the quatenus,) an effort was made to qualify the subscription to the symbolical Books previously enforced, by the insertion of a clause 'quatenus cum S.S. concordant,' i.e., as far as they agree with Holy Scripture, and that subsequently to that time such a qualification of the terms of subscription has been allowed. The results of this qualification will be readily anticipated. Mosheim complains that at the end of the seventeenth century the Lutherans had adopted the notion that they owed no account of their belief to any human tribunal. Schröck, who wrote his Post-Reformation History at the beginning of the present century, says that conscientious teachers adhere to the symbolical Books, "as far as their conviction of their truth extends ;" and he adds that "where they differ from them in essentials, they do not publicly oppose them."

Mr. Rose, in the volume to which we have referred, endeavours to show that not only was there nothing in the constitution of the German Churches which could check changes of doctrine, but further states, that some of their theologians recognised the necessity of a revision of their belief, " as often

as any new views required it ;" and he observes, that wherever such a principle is recognised, "every new school of philosophy would produce a revolution of religious opinion," and consequently that "there would be nothing fixed or stable in religion while the world lasted."*

Mr. Rose, moreover, contrasts the constitution of the English Church with the Churches of the Continent, in regard to the safeguards against doctrinal changes which are provided in the formularies which the clergy of the former are required to subscribe; and whilst avowedly abstaining from any formal attempt to assign the causes which led to that state of Protestantism in Germany which he describes, he does, in effect, trace very much of the Rationalism which has prevailed in that country, to the absence of the three great safeguards which he deems requisite for the well being of any Church," viz., "the possession of a clear and distinct declaration of faith to which strict adherence must be required; of a liturgy which shall practically apply the doctrines of that declaration to men's wants and infirmities, and of a government which shall diligently repress every tendency to carelessness, and every attempt at innovation." (p. 8.)

The views supported in this work, of which we have now given, in the writer's own words, a brief outline, were assailed by Dr. (then Mr.) Pusey as involving, in his judgment, "the abandonment of the fundamental doctrines of Protestantism," and as "derogating from the independence and the inherent power of the Word of God."

Dr. Pusey prefixed to his work a long letter from Professor Sach, in which he questions the correctness both of the estimate formed by Mr. Rose of the extent to which Rationalism prevailed in Germany, and also of the sources to which the movement might be traced. In the course of this letter, Professor Sach, who confesses and deplores the existence of those unscriptural and heretical aberrations from the faith which then, as now, existed in Germany, points out the insufficiency, in his judgment, of the establishment of verbal forms, and the objections which may be urged against "the creation of symbols independent of immediate controversy," and against all modes of restraint, "which place the human form of the doctrine on an equality with the word of Scripture." Professor Sach expresses, moreover, his opinion-an opinion of which, alas! the present generation has witnessed the correctness-that the danger to which Germany was exposed, that the conflict then waging would ultimately systematise itself in "the contrast of a religious and of an atheistic character of thought," was one *We quote from the second Edition of Mr. Rose's work, not having access, as we write, to the first Edition.

to which the English Episcopal, as well as every other part of the Christian Church, was exposed, and also his conviction-a conviction the soundness of which we rejoice to find corroborated in works such as those of Dr. Christlieb-that the disease thus universal to mankind, though it might delay, could not preclude "the restoration of German theology, derived from the genuine sources of philological and historical investigation, combined with that experience in faith which brings the mind and heart in vivid contact with them." (p. 11.)

In the course of this letter Professor Sach alludes to a fact which does not appear to have received that attention to which its importance entitles it, viz., that in Germany it has ever been a principle in the Universities "to allow science to speak out entirely unrestrained, even in opposition to the doctrine of the Church, in the confidence that the theological faculty, through greater depth, or the greater correctness of its point of view, would be able to supply a counterpoise." This consideration, in the judgment of Professor Sach, removes no small portion of the blame which attached to the then existing state of opinion on theological subjects, from the theologians and the Church of Germany, and transfers it to the philosophical and literary spirit of the time. It forms no part of our design to discuss the question whether, as regards the extent to which Rationalism had prevailed in Germany fifty years ago, and the sources to which its influx must be assigned, the preponderance of evidence was on the side of Mr. Hugh James Rose, or on that of Mr. Pusey and Professor Sach. In one respect, and that a most important one, as we have already observed, the conviction expressed by the learned Professor, that a brighter day was about to dawn, has been, at least in some important respects, already realised. On the other hand, there are not lacking indications that in Germany, as well as in England, the spirit of unbelief has taken a stronger hold upon the masses of the people. "Whereas," as Dr. Christlieb observes, "when in former times objections were raised to the truths and facts of Christianity-first in England, then in France, and finally in the German fatherland-it was generally assumed that the challengers of Revelation ought to bear the burden of proof; the tables are now turned, and those who still believe anything are called on to justify their presumption in doing so." (Preface, p. 9.)

But, whilst the more open and more general avowal of a belief of the inconsistency between the claims of Revelation and the discoveries of history and of science has done much to render unbelief, or at least a qualified profession of it, popular amongst all classes of society, as well in England as on the Continent, we think it may be affirmed with confidence that there

never was a time when the allegations of scepticism have undergone a more thorough and searching examination, and when the results of that examination have issued in a more decisive victory for the cause of Revelation.

Of the three main sources of modern doubt, viz. the alleged results of metaphysical philosophy, of historical criticism, and of natural sience, Dr. Christlieb, in the volume recently put forth, deals, at considerable length, and with more than ordinary ability, with the first, and partially, but not less ably, with the second.

Whilst conscientiously and studiously acknowledging the amount of truth, so far as he is able to recognise it, in the views of his opponents, he has not only sought to avoid every unreal and, therefore, unworthy compromise between the Christianity of the Bible and modern thought, but he has not scrupled boldly to carry the assault into the very heart of the enemy's camp, and, in our judgment, to win, in that arena, some of his most brilliant and most important trophies. In the first of this Course of Lectures, a portion of the groundwork of which was laid when the writer was Pastor of the German Congregation in Islington (1863-4), Dr. Christlieb investigates the causes of the breach now existing between our modern culture and Christianity. He points out, very justly, that modern unbelief is only in part a new phenomenon, and that it stands in close connection with similar movements since the first promulgation of the Gospel. Then, indeed, Christianity was rejected as something new and strange; in the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as in our own days, its truth is denied on the ground that it has grown old and effete.

The Reformation, in addition to its elements of strength, introduced also new elements of danger. Much which has subsequently occurred to mar or hinder the work which, in Germany, had been begun under the guidance of the comprehensive and discriminating mind of Luther, would, in the judgment of the Mr. Pusey of 1828, have been avoided, had the work been perfected in the spirit in which the master-mind of its great instrument conceived it. The great religious principle of man's personal responsibility, which was maintained by the most eminent of the Reformers, in subordination to the supreme authority of Holy Scripture, gradually emancipated itself, in the case of their successors, from every kind of authority, even when brought to bear upon questions which admit of reference to no other tribunal. In the 15th and 16th centuries Italy had led the way in the development of freedom of thought: in the 17th and 18th, first England and then France acted the part of pioneers in the onward progress of scepticism. There is scarcely a point in the whole compass of Christian evidence which was