and that Evangelicals have no remedy but a series of expensive and tedious lawsuits, which seldom produce results that are considered satisfactory. It professes not to desire to depart from the old historic line, and rejoices that its bishops and clergy can trace their descent from the see of Canterbury: but cherishes a fraternal spirit to men of other denominations, and permits its clergy to exchange pulpits with ministers of other persuasions. It professes to hold itself aloof from Anglicanism solely on the grounds of ritualism, and that, were the sacerdotalists expelled from the ranks, its members would gladly return to the Church of England; but that on the contrary, should the sacerdotalists gain the day, it hopes to be a house of refuge and a rallying-point for the promotion of a Church of England truly and entirely evangelical, which shall go forth "fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible to the systems which oppose God's word as an army with banners." It seem certain that so long as a large body of the Anglican clergy persist in imitating the ceremonies of the Mass, whether of Roman or Sarum rite, hear confessions, and adorn their churches to such an extent that it is hard for an outsider to know whether it is a Catholic place of worship or not, so long will the members of this new sect have an argument to justify their conduct and the sympathy of a large number of Protestants. Bishop Gregg, in a charge delivered July, 1, 1879, uses the following remarkable language: "Why do we as a Church exist? The need for our existence arises from the spread of the doctrines and practices of Rome in the Established Church of this land. Under various termsCatholic revival, etc.-we find a wide-spread effort to assimilate the doctrines and services of the Church of England to those of Rome. . . . Church restoration has come to be regarded in many cases as a restoration of Romanism. . . . Our mission is to complete the work of the Reformation. . . . We are one with the Church of England in all points in which the Church of England is one with the word of God. . . . We are tired of modern superstitions and mediæval absurdities. . . . Our mission is to give back to England, to her dominions and dependencies and colonies, the Church of England as she used to be.... We have no priests save the Lord Jesus Christ and all his spiritual people, no altar save Calvary, no atoning sacrifice save the Lamb of God, no real pleasure save that of Christ in the heart. . . . We love the old paths, and say that the old wine is better than the new."

...

The Anglican prelates who resent the intrusion of the Reformed bishops in England fail to see that, according to their own argument, they should discourage all attempts at proselytism on the Continent, and that it is grossly inconsistent for them to patronize elsewhere what they repudiate in Great Britain. With marvelous inconsistency they attack a man like Bishop Gregg for subverting apostolic order and decency in England, while they encourage M. Loyson and Bishop Reinkens for doing precisely the same thing in France and Germany.

In "Tait's Magazine," for January, 1851, written at the time of the so-called Papal Aggression, the following passage occurs, which, with reference to this new Reformed Episcopal Church, seems almost prophetic: "The Queen's prerogative, we had always simply imagined, was to appoint archbishops and bishops of the Established Church. Is it now meant that she has the prerogative of appointing the prelates of other Churches too? No. If the Times and its multitudinous followers are to be taken as exponents, it means there shall be no other bishops in England. Now look where this leads. Quoth the Times, England has bishops and dioceses of her own, and no others can be appointed without insult to the crown and kingdom, and just liabilities on the part of the offenders.' We have here a hint of the circumstances which render it a possibility to foist such fallacies on the public, as well as the consequences to which they point. To change the names, Scotland had synods and presbyteries of its own-those of the Established Church as appointed by legislative authority-yet the Scottish dissenters, happening to be Presbyterians, have over and over again made new synods and presbyteries without ever thinking that they had insulted the crown and kingdom and come under just liabilities. It has so happened, however, that none of the dissenters from the Church of England are Episcopalians, otherwise there would have been other bishops and dioceses long ago, and the fallacy in present use would never have been born, or at least could never have lived. But will there never be any dissenters in England save the Roman Catholics requiring bishops for their Church government? Is there not an exceeding likelihood that ere long we shall see such coming out of the English Church, carrying their Episcopal principles with them? Lately it seemed as if this exodus were to be composed of the Evangelical party, and, if we are not mistaken, a sort of beginning or nucleus already existed in the person of Mr. Shore, of Exeter; and now it is more likely to be the Puseyites, beginning with Mr. Bennet. But nobody knows whose may be the first turn or whose the next; but any man may know who chooses to consider, that if this doctrine of no bishops nor dioceses save those of the Established Church being permissible is to be held good, Episcopal dissenters are things prohibited."

What is here hinted at is that which has now actually come to pass; there has been a secession from the ranks of the LowChurch side, inaugurated by Bishop Cummins and styled the "Reformed Episcopal Church," and a secession from the HighChurch ranks styled "Corporate Reunion," which at present possesses bishops, (whose names are, however, withheld from the public on the plea of expediency.)-Pp. 354-358, and 359-361.

THE UNIVERSALIST QUARTERLY, July, 1880. (Boston.) 1. Natural Law; by Prof. O. Cone, D.D. 2. Universalism the only Solution of the Problems of Moral Evil and Human Destiny; by Rev. George Hill. 3. A Study of America. Archæology-Part I. Interesting Remains and their Location; by Rev. J. F. M'Lean. 4. Religion and Morals; by Rev. Sumner Ellis. 5. The Chaldæo-Assyrian Doctrine of the Future Life, according to the Cuneiform Inscriptions; by Rev. 0. D. Miller. 6. Universalism and Punishment; by Rev. W. C. Stiles. 7. St. Peter's Privileges; or, The Keys of the Kingdom; by Jane L. Patterson. We are indebted to the "Universalist Quarterly" for a definition of the "New Orthodoxy" in the "Independent,” which had escaped our notice in the paper itself, regularly as we are accustomed to peruse its columns. The definition states the basis which the whole tone and course of that paper indicate to underlie its own positions.

If the designation of "New Orthodoxy" is to be thrust upon believers who break away from the severe assertions and negations of old Calvinism, we should say that it belongs first to the Arminianism of the Wesleyan Churches. Their faith is "orthodoxy," and "new;" newer-and older-than Calvinism. If the term be applied to a line of evangelical thought within the Churches hitherto called Calvinistic, we should say that it is characterized:

1. By a very wide tolerance of belief, so it be reverent. It utterly denies the dogma of the Westminster divines-that none can be saved, "be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of Nature," unless they profess the Christian religion. It holds that God's mercy may include Mohammedans, Pagans, even skeptics and Atheists in Christian lands, if they have honestly tried to get at the truth, even though they have failed to find it.

2. By a larger recognition of a human, fallible element in the holy Scriptures. It thinks the application of reason and criticism to the Bible just as legimate as when the canon was made.

3. While heartily accepting revelation and supernaturalism, by regarding as doubtful and unimportant many dogmas and philosophies of old orthodoxies.

4. By recognizing a basis of true faith underlying many relig ions, and seeing in Christianity the greatest and mightiest of the influences by which men are made the friends of God.

5. By accepting with great simplicity the Edwardean doctrine that true virtue consists in "love to Being in General."P. 375.

As we understand its articles thus stated we are decidedly heretic to this "New Orthodoxy." We acknowledge the "Independent's" candor in giving a true account of the "Arminianism of the Wesleyan Churches." It virtually acknowledges that our socalled "Arminianism" is the "old," that is, the primitive dogma.

That dogma is in truth neither "Arminianism" nor "Wesleyanism," but primitive Christism and Christ's original apostolism and Churchism. In spite of Augustine and his influence it reigned predominant in the old Churches, Greek, Roman, and Anglican, until at the Reformation the disastrous genius of John Calvin brought Predestination into Protestantism, and actually that much established a spurious "orthodoxy" in its Churches. Arminius rescued the old doctrine, and the Wesleyan reformation completed its rescue and inspired it with its primitive life. Wesley, therefore, did not launch out in an undefined field of speculation; but, as a restoration, he firmly stayed within the limits of "Scripture and the primitive Church." Herein he differed from modern Germany and with this "New Orthodoxy." That "New Orthodoxy" seems without a conservative stoppage. It stands upon a smooth inclined plane and smoothly tends to the bottom, or to the bottomless.

In regard to Article First we may say that we coincide in the rejection of the Westminster doctrine, believing with St. Peter, Acts x, 34, 35, that "in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him." But to the "Independent's" very pregnant addition, "and Atheists in Christian lands," Wesleyanism is eloquently silent. She believes that Atheism is sin. It is the result of alienation from God, and produces alienation from God. She believes with St. Paul, in Rom. i, 19, 20, that it is a willful and responsible unbelief, "so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE." It is an unbelief against intuitive light and knowledge as well as against external evidence. It is, therefore, a heinous and a damning sin.

Article Second lays open the sacred "canon" to a free fight; to as free discussion "as when the canon was made." Wesleyanism, thanks to her Anglican origin, has placed the once settled "canon " in her articles of faith, and holds that canon to stand among her undisputable foundations. In our Articles the complete canon is placed on the same basis with the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible is an ORGANIC BOOK. Take it as it stands, from Genesis to Revelation, and it is a most majestic WHOLE. As to the Old Testament this has been asserted with absolute finality by the divine Giver of all revelation, Jesus Christ himself, the Son of God. Christ quoted the Old Testament as a divine authority; and his collective term for

the organic whole was Law, (John x, 34; xii, 34,) which was a synonym for canon. As to the New Testament we refer our readers to the concluding parts of our synopsis quotation from the "British Quarterly," and especially to Canon Westcott's affirmation of the wholeness of the New Testament. We reject with promptitude the pruriencies displayed by modern nelogists, whether in the columns of the "Independent," or elsewhere, for gnawing like vermin at these foundations. Especially do we reject the flippancies with which petty upstarts not only question the fundamental, but put on airs, and talk about "modern thought," and all that lingua franca. And when they make the acceptance of their crotchets a test of being "up to the standard of modern biblical criticism," we have no difficulty or hesitation in stringently applying the critical "rod to the fool's back."

The Third Article is not sufficiently guarded for our acceptWesleyanism has been a well-defined system of doctrines, and it is by their definiteness that they have been efficient. As Dr. Fowler once well said, a religion needs a theology as a body needs a skeleton. That skeleton must be neither boneless in substance nor distorted in shape. There is great danger under the present temper of discarding the doctrines of our theology, of relapsing into a very ignorant religious sentimentalism. It is a very suspicious sign when the word "dogma" becomes a cant term of reproach. It was Theodore Parker's term of stigma for all the peculiar truths of Christianity. And one of Dr. Newhall's earliest and best articles in our "Quarterly" replied. by showing that Parker's own dogmas were quite as dogmatic, and by him quite as dogmatically asserted, as any of the truths of our theology. On the whole, our young Methodist ministers who read the pages of the "Independent" would do well to read carefully, also, Dr. Hurst's "History of Rationalism," that they may fully understand the route by which utter apostasy from Christianity can be very smoothly attained through progressive liberalism.

ORIENTAL AND BIBLICAL JOURNAL. Issued Quarterly. Volume I., No. I. January, 1880. (Chicago.) Palestine Explorations; by Rev. Selah Merrill, D.D. The Silent Races; by L. J. Dupre. Ancient Lake Dwellers. Aztec Signs for Speech. The Test of Linguistic Affinity; by Albert S. Gatschet. The Elephantine Cave. Population of Jerusalem. A Monument of Cyrus the Great. Destruction of Ancient Monuments. Ancient Settlements of the Phoenicians. Museums. Ayenar. Fountain of Youth. Mandarian Language. Asiatic Origin of the Brazilians.