philosophy to forget that the soul of the regenerate man, even of the perfect Christian, must still remain in vital connexion with the body, and, therefore, if for no other reason, must be incapable of attaining to a state of Adamic purity. In the case of the drunkard, for example, there are two diseases on him; one of the mind, the other of the body; the one a depravation of his affections, the other a vitiation of his nerves. Now, when such a person comes to be regenerated, the process does not cure the nervous disease: the craving for the poisonous stimulant continues, for some time at least, in all its former viciousness of appetite.........So is it with all other depraved appetites and habits of sensual action and susceptibility: it is the mind alone on which the agency of regeneration acts; and the mind, when changed, proceeds to reduce the rebellious flesh to order.' (Pp. 10, 11.) More follows in illustration of the same principle, and the author brings the section to a close by directing the hope of tempted believers to that day when their entire being shall be perfectly regenerated; with the body no longer an impediment and temptation, but, itself spiritualized, made a fit and harmonious organization for the inhabitation and exercises of the glorified mind.' It will be observed that he uses mind in these extracts in its most comprehensive sense, as including all that belongs to our immaterial nature. The result of Dr. Anderson's entire teaching on this subject is, that he maintains, that the new man' may be perfectly formed in a Christian, his spiritual principles and affections may be pure and perfect, he may ordinarily and habitually be filled with perfect love to God and man, and yet, even then, such is the connexion of the mind with the body, as well as of the man with the world, that he will remain liable, not merely from without, as in the case of Adam, but, in a sense, from within, to disturbance and temptation from the 'motions of sin which work in his members,' from constitutional besetments, strengthened and aggravated by habit, by association of ideas, by memory, by the long established interplay of mind and body, flesh and spirit. Dr. Anderson is a bold thinker, and a fervid writer. The Scottish temperament glows strong within him. Happily he is a reverent believer in the Divine Word, and an experimental Christian. This restrains him from driving his bold and logical habit of thinking to dangerous lengths. He does not shrink from launching outright a theory on the subject of original sin. He rejects distinctly and with little ceremony the traducian hypothesis as to the transmission of mind from generation to generation, as 'inferring either gross materialism in the creed, or the fancy, that mind generates mind,' and maintains, on the contrary, that every soul has its origin directly in the power of God.' (Page 51.) Hence, he is led to adopt 'one form of the privation-theory of Original Sin,' and to denounce' the opposite view as 'an impeachment of God as being the author of sin, in the worst form possible, in which the impeachment can be made as not only tempting to its commission, but directly creating it.' In two pages of strong, hot words, he gives vent to his indignation against those preachers who teach such doctrine, of whom he Brief Literary Notices. 557 affirms, with great disgust, that even now-a-days, and among ourselves, they are popular and praised as peculiarly evangelical! He devotes an appendix to the subject of the 'privation-theory,' claiming for it the highest theological authority, the support of Howe, Turretin, Doddridge, President Edwards, Dr. Williams, Dr. Hodge (of America), Dr. Harris, and many others. Dr. Anderson might have added to his list the name of Richard Watson. To the form of this theory advocated by Dr. Payne, Dr. Anderson takes serious exception. His practical conclusion as to the doctrine of original sin is thus expressed: 'Whatever may be the theory according to which the explanation is attempted, the fact, that human nature is universally depraved, that sin is as characteristic of man as any instinctive disposition or habit which may be named, is characteristic of some particular species of animal,-is evinced incontrovertibly by all experience, all observation, and the whole complex of the Scripture.' Dr. Anderson's subject brings him, of necessity, into contact, at various points, with the High-Church theory of regeneration in baptism, and sanctification by the Eucharist. In face of this false theory, his indignation knows no bounds; not only does he not measure his terms, but he allows himself in a kind of coarse raillery, which greatly violates good taste. We feel as strongly as Dr. Anderson the necessity of utterly exposing and refuting, of overwhelming by logic, and, if needful, even by keen satire, so it be well-mannered, 'the superstition of water-baptism sanctification.' But to do this effectually it is necessary to recognise and do justice to the truth of which it is the perversion, and to show how that truth may be asserted and made efficacious apart from all belief 'in spiritual-material dynamics,' or, as Archdeacon Hare phrases it, in the magical powers' of the symbolical ordinance and sacrament of Holy Baptism. How beautiful are these words of Trench, from a hymn 'to his godchild on the day of his baptism!' 'Dear child, and happy shalt thou be * If there shall be no dreary space No dreary miserable place With spectral shapes aghast; But the full graces of thy prime Shall, in their weak beginnings, be There is truth at the bottom of such hopes and prayers as these, truth, indeed, which is not necessarily dependent, as High Churchmen fancy, on the doctrine of 'baptismal regeneration,' but which, notwithstanding, gives a charm and a vitality to that evil perversion. Let this truth be recognised, and its consistency shown, equally with the doctrine of human depravity and with that of salvation by faith in Christ. This would be the first step towards an effectual refutation of the priestly superstition. Dr. Anderson can hardly give a believer in sacramental efficacy, especially if he be a clergyman, credit for common sincerity; Tractarians, as a class, he condemns as dishonest. All this is too sweeping, and mars his excellent treatise. He is, moreover, too diffuse in his style, and writes in too great a heat and haste. A strict revision, with a view to greater nicety of phrase, and especially to greater compression, would greatly benefit his volume. He appears to have been a pupil of Dr. Chalmers. This fact is interesting to us, as affording reason to regard Dr. Anderson's loving and large-hearted theology as in some sort a derivative from the teaching of Chalmers. But one consequence of his having attended Dr. Chalmers's prelections is probably that he has, from the example of his teacher, become infected with that diffuseness on which we have remarked. Nevertheless, as an original, fresh, vigorous, and suggestive performance, we can warmly recommend this treatise to our readers. Man Contemplated in his Primeval, Fallen, Redeemed, and Millennial Condition. By the Rev. Nathan Rouse. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co. 1861. THIS book teaches-among other strange things-these as the strangest; that the regenerate man may be so, and so far, sanctified as to be restored to a state, in which to Adamic purity is united all that belongs to Christian holiness; that the children of parents, both of whom are thus sanctified, will be born (not merely innocent, but) holy, fully sanctified in the highest Christian sense, participant of the Christian character of their parents, at that stage of exalted spirituality and full consecration, to which, through a long growth in grace and the experience of years, they have been brought by the Holy Spirit; moreover, that in the proportion in which any parents may have advanced towards this estate of consummate Christliness, their children will partake of the Christian character; and that, in this way, by propagation, by immaculate conception' on a scale which reduces the modern Romish dogma to insignificance, it can alone be expected that Christianity shall ultimately become universal and the visions of prophecy be fulfilled. These ideas are not new; they have presented themselves in passing to many minds; they have been expressly refuted in the writings of theologians. But till now we are not aware that any one, after seriously considering their meaning and their consequences, has committed himself to the support of principles so crude and unscientific, as well as unscriptural. Mr. Rouse's theory of the propagation of souls is so coarsely, so revoltingly, material, that we cannot bring ourselves to print the words in which it is expressed. Suffice it that Christian sanctification descends, together with the soul, from parent to child, enwrapped in a material vehicle. Mr. Rouse does not seem to be aware that, according to the well-established results of scientific investigation, the result of his principle, if it were true, would be that the soul and the sanctification are derived exclusively from the father. On all that belongs to this subject Mr. Rouse's views are extremely Brief Literary Notices. 559 superficial, notwithstanding the great confidence with which he holds them. According to his philosophy, each vegetable has a soul. He quotes from Müller's work on Sin, as if that great thinker agreed with him, whereas the very passages he quotes show that the profound German philosopher holds a view precisely the contrary of his own. It is evident that he has never even conceived the question which lies at the root of all truly scientific thought on this subject— What is nature? What are the laws and forces on which the continuity of species depends? He even seems to write as if he looked upon depravity as a material force, if not as a material deposit. His interpretations of Scripture, not only as respects the second and third chapters of Genesis, but such passages, e. g., as John iii. 6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh,' are specimens of superficial, unspiritual rationalizing, exceeding in their way almost anything to be found in Kuinoël. Mr. Rouse teaches that the children of the fully holy are not born of the flesh.' But he has not explained how, on his hypothesis, we are to interpret John iii. 3. Mr. Rouse's conception of the nature of sanctification is vitally defective. Suppose a child were born into the world, entirely free from the taint of human depravity, it would not on that account be a partaker of Christian regeneration, or grow up in the possession of Christian holiness. It would be as rational to conceive of an infant being born mature in body and mind, and in bodily and mental vigour, perfect in habits and in activity as respects his whole nature, as to conceive that the character of the perfect Christian can be transmitted to his unborn child. The righteousness of the Christian is an essentially and consciously dependent righteousness; he must lean every moment on the staff of a Divine support; the new life is 'life in Christ; the new nature is the being made 'partaker of the Divine nature;' and all that belongs to the Christian's privileges, character, and experience, involves a personal relation between the individual man and his Saviour. How can such a personal relation be transmitted to his offspring through a material vehicle? That, in some way, the character of the offspring is conditioned by the character, as well as by the constitution, of his parents, may probably be the case. But the laws on which that depends cannot be known by us. Assuredly Mr. Rouse's view of the matter is as low, and as unphilosophical, as could well be taken. But, whatever may be the secret laws which determine the facts of the case, universal experience assures us that the pride and passion of self-will which, apart from every grosser manifestation of antagonism to the holy will of God, betokens the depravity of the race, is found alike in all men, and is not found to be mitigated in the children of the godly. Facts contradict, and philosophy disowns, Mr. Rouse's theory. In fact, whoever will try to realize it, will easily learn its unphilosophical character as a theory. Suppose a parent to be partially sanctified, with the 'remains of the carnal mind' struggling for the mastery, in what condition is his offspring born? In that very condition? Is there no law of his nature, as such? Is he already launched into the mid career of Christian experience and life? But suppose, farther, that the parents are unequally sanctified, or the one partially holy, the other still ungodly at heart, into what state will the infant be born, so as fairly to represent and reproduce, in just proportions, and in definite combination, the actual spiritual state of both parents? Or suppose one is entirely sanctified,' and the other but partially, or not at all, what then? Here we have indeed new and strange problems relating to the 'composition of forces.' Mr. Rouse, we hope, ere long will abandon his crude speculations, and confess that our nature, as such, is fallen in Adam, and has its laws of perverted bias and sinful tendency. Autobiography, Letters, and Literary Remains of Mrs. Piozzi. Edited, with Notes and Introductory Account of her Life and Writings, by A. Hayward, Esq., Q.C. Two Vols. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts. 1861. THE two volumes now before us, as a contribution to a special department of literature, may be read with advantage by the student of society and social aspects in the last century. Nor will they be found uninteresting by the general reader, who only desires to pass lightly away a few leisure hours. Hester Lynch Piozzi, or ‘H. L. P.,' as she oftens signs herself in these her literary remains, is best known as Mrs. Thrale, the intimate friend, and benefactress we may add, of Dr. Johnson. Benefactress,-for whatever may have been its originating cause, or the reasons for its maintenance, unquestionably Mrs. Thrale's association with the great moralist and lexicographer was very largely productive of advantage to him. To have hinted such a thought to him would probably have excited all his irascibility, and might have led him to break off a connexion which he would have regarded as degrading. Still it is pretty clear from the details given in these volumes, that both he and the world were gainers by the hospitable asylum afforded him at Streatham House, in the days when its owners were in prosperity and health. Mrs. Piozzi first came into notice, as Hester Lynch Salusbury, at an eventful period of England's history; and she occupied a prominent place in polite and literary society for more than half a century, descending to the grave at the ripe old age of eighty-one, within three days of Napoleon Buonaparte, and in the same year as saw the fourth George crowned King of England. Born in 1740, in 1760, when George III. was crowned, she was the centre of a learned and witty circle. In earlier days Quin, the actor, had taught her to recite Satan's Speech to the Sun, from Paradise Lost, and Garrick had honoured her with a seat upon his knee while they together viewed the illumination and fireworks, part of the rejoicing for the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. And now having been well educated by Dr. Collier, an aged intimate of the family, she took her place, at seventeen, as the head of the establishment of her widowed uncle, Sir Thomas Salusbury; her already brilliant acquirements procuring for her much deserved and honest |