king or emperor, if it is true that the aim of the Church is one more sublime than that of the State, and that a divine institution is of higher value than the human, (p. 292.) That relation between Church and State in which the latter is subordinate to the former, as it was in the Middle Ages, (p. 163,) is the normal relation. It is not a normal condition if a State finds itself in the necessity to tolerate non-Catholic forms of worship, and to concede to non-Catholics as well as to Catholics equal rights and the public profession of their religion. When the unity of faith has long been lost, and where other forms of worship besides the Catholic have for a long time been in the quiet enjoyment of equal rights, prudence commands the civil toleration of all forms of worship, (p. 75.) In such a case freedom of conscience is a lesser evil; in itself it is injurious, (p. 52.) As the individual, the State also has the duty to adopt the true religion, and after its adoption to guarantee its quiet possession to the subjects by forbidding the admission of false religions, (p. 71.) The objection, that if Catholic States have the right to forbid other forms of worship, heterodox and infidel States have the right to forbid the Catholic Church, is re pelled by the argument that the error cannot have equal rights with the truth, (p. 67.) The immunity of the clergy is a divine right, which, therefore, the Church itself cannot abrogate, but only modify. To an infidel prince who would ask to be baptized, but would not be willing to introduce in his dominion the immunity of the clergy, baptism should be refused, (p. 386.) The clergy, according to divine right, is exempt from the jurisdiction of the secular princes, and subject to that of the Pope alone, (p. 383.)

These extracts sufficiently show that Father Liberatore in unmistakable terms professes the doctrine that the Pope of Rome is the sovereign of the entire Christian world, who has a right to set aside the laws of any State which are not in accord with the canonical laws of the Church. The book, as might be expected, has been indorsed by leading ultramontane organs in every country.

ART. X.-QUARTERLY BOOK TABLE.

Religion, Theology, and Biblical Literature.

A New Treatise upon Regeneration in Baptism. By WILLIAM ADAMS, D.D. 8vo., pp. 384. Hartford, Conn.: The Church Press, H. Mallory & Co. 1871. The position of Dr. Adams, and the "Church Press " from which his goodly volume issues, indicate that he is one who speaks as an authority for his Church. He writes professedly under the pressure of a deep feeling that his Church, being "yet a minority in this land," (and, we may add, not traveling very fast into a majority,) its doctrine of Regeneration is "loaded down and overborne with prejudices and misconstructions. The very name

of Baptismal Regeneration is made odious and hateful." Over and over again he expatiates on the contempt with which his Church and this doctrinal specialty are treated; and he proposes to offer this extended work to vindicate both, and to show that, rightly understood, the doctrine is authorized by Scripture, is traditional in the general historical Church, is maintained by all the Anglican standards, and is productive of a true evangelic piety.

Dr. Adams is an earnest, and doubtless very sincere and truly pious, writer. He is severe upon opposite doctrines, but generous to his opponents, giving them full and cordial credit, when deserved, for learning, ability, and Christian piety. He hates Calvinism nearly as earnestly as it deserves to be morally hated, but is magnanimous to the great Genevan himself and to his pious followers. He is clear, copious, and sometimes eloquent in his style, yet sometimes prolix, rambling, and, not unfrequently, declamatory.

We think the doctrine, as maintained by Dr. Adams in behalf of the American-Anglican Church, is fairly thus stated. While conversion is the sinner's turning by repentance and faith from Satan to God, regeneration is the act of the Holy Spirit upon the soul, renewing it by the impartation of a supernatural divine life. A man confesses repentance and conversion; thereupon the clergyman baptizes him, and simultaneously the Holy Spirit bestows the inward regenerating grace. Thereby we know by visible presentation the time when a man is regenerated. The Church having thus regenerated him through the Spirit's power, takes him, nurses him with the word, with her sacraments and her discipline, and trains him for heaven. If he forfeit not by sin the grace received by baptism, he will not fail of a crown of glory.

We agree in nearly every point with Dr. Adams. His statement of the distinction between conversion and regeneration, of the subsequence of the latter to the former, and of the nature of the latter, we fully indorse. We believe with him in the close correlation between baptism and regeneration as sign and thing signified; in the proper co-existence of the two. We believe that in every rightly-performed baptism the Holy Spirit does a blessed work upon the soul. Our Saviour's words, Except a man be born of water, do justify the fathers in calling baptism, in an external sense, a regeneratio. But this point, namely, that after repentance and conversion the Holy Spirit waits for baptism in order to regenerate the soul, so that the baptism

and regeneration are appointedly always simultaneous, the former being the instrument operating the latter, we do not believe.

Dr. Adams proves abundantly and superabundantly that his is the actual and only doctrine of the Anglican Church. The socalled evangelical clergy who deny this fact sustain their denial by a system of very unevangelical quibbling. But when he

comes to his scripture proof his failure is complete and absolute. The very strongest expression is that of St. Peter, (1 Pet. iii, 21,) “Baptism doth now save us." These words do most literally declare that the act of water baptism not only regenerates, but that it effects our complete salvation. No text is more explicit. Yet mark how Peter immediately gives us a permanent law of exegesis which guards us against Dr. Adams's High-Church interpretation of all such words and passages: "Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." When it is said, quoth Peter, that water baptism saves us, regenerates us, (Titus iii, 5,) washes away our sins, (Acts xxii, 16,) it means, not that the external rite actually saves, regenerates, or washes, but that it is the inward grace typified by the external rite which does really save, regenerate, and wash. In such passages the sign is used for the thing signified; or, more exactly still, the visible rite does formally, symbolically, and externally wash, regenerate, and save us, correspondently with the essential and internal washing, regenerating, and saving by the inward grace. Nor does any text nor any reason require that the sign and thing signified should be simultaneous acts. St. Peter's very purpose in these words was to prevent the current phraseology of the New Testament Church from being interpreted into the ritualistic doctrine of "Baptismal Regeneration." And it was most divinely fitting that St. Peter, claimed by Ritualism as her great head, should be the very apostle to pronounce the capital sentence against her.

Dr. Adams justly reprehends the various evasive and fantastic misinterpretations (quoted in Tholuck's Commentary) on John iii, 5, which he considers the fortress-text of his dogma. St. Peter's rule of exegesis completely explains that text. Our Lord's words beautifully blend the double baptismal induction into the double kingdom of God. Except a man be born externally by water he cannot enter into the external kingdom; except he be born internally by the Spirit he cannot enter into the internal and eternal kingdom. Baptism is the condition of induction into the kingdom: external baptism for the kingdom external, internal for the internal.

12mo.,

God-Man. By L. T. TOWNSEND, D.D. Search and Manifestation. pp. 446. Boston: Lee & Shepard. New York: Lee, Shepard, & Dillingham.

1872.

Dr. Townsend offers us an appropriation of the results of comparative theology in proof of the divinity of Christianity. It is too early to expect such a work should be completely done, but not premature for some free tentatives to be essayed. Indeed, he has been preceded in the attempt by Maurice Hardwicke, Freeman Clarke, and others. Hardwicke places Mosaicism, with its miracle, prophecy, and completeness of divine scheme, in superiority over every rival. Mr. Clarke maintains that every other religion has something good, yet lacks important somethings; while Christianity has all the good of each, with a fullness that lacks nothing. But with Mr. Clarke all religions ascend from man; none descend to man from God, except as the productive power for religion is placed by the Creator in man's nature. With Mr. Townsend religion goes not up from man, but truly comes down to man from God. Man's nature does not create, but gropes for, anticipates, receives, and verifies, the true religion. In the vast field of the ethnic systems he recognizes the great outlines of a true theology, of which Christianity is the true realization. His work is, therefore, divided into two parts, The Search and The Manifestation; the former, as shown in the history of Ethnic religions; the latter, as appearing in historic Christianity. His analysis of the vast mass of ethnic thought finds four leading Ideas, namely, God, Mediator, Incarnation, and Sacrifice. We were surprised that in this enumeration neither the ethical idea, including the sense of sin, nor the idea of immortality, including the doctrine of retribution, were included. This deficit is unsymmetrically supplied in a following chapter so far as the last idea is concerned, but the specification should be in its proper place. Then come some chapters in which the validity of his analysis as ascertaining an Essential Theology in the sum total of ethnic systems is maintained. We are then ready for the manifestation, in which the concrete of this Essential Theology is revealed.

From this vantage ground he takes a survey of Christ and Christianity which is fresh, somewhat original in its sweep, and very effective. The power of the author now finely appears in giving a new shape and fresh force to the evidences of Christianity. Christianity is not with him, as with Mr. Clarke, obliged to grope among rival religions, half doubtful whether they are not as good as she. No. From the high platform of Essential The

ology he uncompromisingly descries in Christ the Incarnation, the Mediator, the Sacrifice. It is solely upon the first of the three, however, he fixes, and exerts all his powers in demonstrating the God-man.

He analyses the era of Christ, and finds that it is a historic period. He examines the Gospel documents, and finds they are historic records. He examines the phenomena, and finds that Christ was a true man. He then interrogates the proofs for his divinity, and finds the facts in the documents, the apostolic opinions, the contemporaneous public opinion, Jesus' own personal testimony, the early Christian opinion, the estimates of modern rationalizers, and the Christian consciousness. From all these he obtains a body of testimony powerfully bearing upon his conclusion.

The work has many obvious defects in minor details which affect its merits rather as a work of art than of popular power. The first part of the book is entitled, The Search; and yet the ethnic systems are treated much less as an inquiry of the human mind (as they are by Maurice) than as a dogmatic intuitive theology; so that the two parts should be apparently rather entitled the Affirmation and its Realization.

Dr. Townsend's style is intuitive rather than logical; so inconsecutive as often to lapse into itemization; presenting a series of successive flashes, with frequent jets of vivid eloquence, rather than a current of fluent thought. He has the most abounding genius for quotation known in literature-quotation often pertinent and brilliant, and sustaining his point with great authority. He has adopted, however, an unfortunate rule of not referring his reader to the place in the quoted author, thus depriving us of the privilege of sipping at original fountains; and sometimes, perhaps, releasing himself from the responsibility of a scrupulous accuracy. We would like to know, for instance, where "Pliny speaks of Christians as 'pestilent fellows,"" and where "Juvenal uttered his bitterest satires against them," (p. 143;) and where Dugald Stewart affirmed Mill's doctrine solving innate ideas by association, (p. 151,) and whether Dr. Channing did not abundantly and "dogmatically" assert the mere humanity of Christ in, if our memory deceive us not, his sermon for Dr. Sparks at Baltimore to which Moses Stuart replied. But these lapses are very few in proportion to his immense amount of quotation.

Our author's writings make their mark, and appeal with power and effect to their correlative class of minds. They are bold,