existence of mind is necessary to that of ideas, while the existence of matter is not thus necessary; but he gives up what he before assumes, that like cannot suggest unlike. It is easy to see that the same argument applies to substantial mind as to substantial matter, as Hume saw and boldly carried out. Berkeley was also strong in his polemic against abstract ideas,-as the abstract ideas of space, time, a triangle,-maintaining that all ideas are individual, and that what we call abstract ideas, are simply general or indefinite, in this anticipating modern thought.

Without doubt, Berkeley paved the way for Hume and the sensational school: but we must remember that according to his intention, his system was the opposite of sceptical and irreligious. He earnestly believed that he was raising an impregnable barrier against infidelity. This is seen in the fact that he announces as the outcome of his theory, that the existence of God is made as suré, sceptics would say as doubtful, as our own existence, and that of our fellow-men, which are self-evident. Thus he says, "A human spirit or person is not perceived' by sense, as not being an idea; when, therefore, we see the colour, size, figure, and motions of a man, we perceive only sensations or ideas excited in our own minds; and these being exhibited to our view in sundry distinct collections, serve to mark out unto us the existence of finite and created spirits like ourselves. Hence it is plain, we do not see a man, if by man is meant that which lives, moves, perceives, and thinks as we do; but only such a certain collection of ideas as directs us to think there is a distinct principle of thought and motion like to ourselves, accompanying and represented by it. And after the same manner we see God; all the difference is, that whereas some one finite and narrow assemblage of ideas denotes a particular human mind, whithersoever we direct our view, we do at all times and in all places perceive manifest tokens of the Divinity: everything we see, hear, feel, or anywise perceive by sense, being a sign or effect of the power of God; as is our perception of those very motions which are produced by men." But unfortunately the scepticism followed from his theory, the faith was an arbitrary addition. Free-thinkers accepted the first and declined the second. For example, Berkeley is at one with the modern school in his definition of cause as applied to outward phenomena, that it is simply regular sequence, exclusive of efficient power which can only reside in mind and personal will. He goes on to assume that there is and must be such a mind; but Hume and his followers refuse to follow him. All that, they say, is beyond our province. Perhaps no fault can be found with Berkeley on this particular point; but the same cannot be said of his main theory, which, much against its author's intention, has been applied to the support of unbelief. It is curious to observe Berkeley's use of the term "materialist." Throughout he applies it to all who believe in the existence of matter at all. In his eyes, one who believes in mind and matter is a materialist as much as one who believes in the last only.

Let us here put unwary readers on their guard against the spirit of the materialistic philosophy now so popular. Under the mask of serene, passionless impartiality, its advocates give no faint signs of the bitterest animus against all that is spiritual. We write of authors and their systems, not of individuals. If it is bigotry to reject doctrines, not on

VOL. XIX.-FIFTH SERIES.

2 R

their merits, but because of their supposed hostility to religion, is it not bigotry as great to reject doctrines and condemn authors, not on their merits, but because of their alliance with religion? Any one can see this bias running through the modern sensational school, and colouring all its judgments. Why, for example, should Mr. Mill in his Utilitarianism speak with such scorn of Paley's Moral Philosophy? We like Paley's utilitarian morality as little indeed as we like Mill's; but we are at a loss to distinguish them in principle. Certainly there is no greater difference between Mill and Paley than between Mill and Bentham; yet Paley is condemned, Bentham adored. What is the ground of the difference but religion? We have no doubt that the same reason is at the bottom of the bitterness with which the Hamiltonian philosophy is regarded. Nothing must be admitted which places itself beside religious faith. This passionate hatred of everything religious is plain as the day in many who profess cool, judicial indifference to everything but the interests of scientific truth. Young readers cannot be too earnestly warned against this common bias of the present day.

To return to Berkeley's life. One effect of his writings was to intro. duce him to the literary society of England, which then glittered with brilliant names. He became the associate and friend of Swift, Arbuth not, Parnell, Addison, Pope, Atterbury, Steele, Gay, Prior, Samuel Clarke, the two Freinds. His theory exposed him to a good deal of raillery. Once when he was ill, Dr. Arbuthnot wrote to Swift, "Poor philosopher Berkeley has now the idea of health, which was very hard to produce in him; for he had an idea of a strange fever upon him, so strong that it was very hard to destroy it by introducing a contrary one." Another wrote,

"And coxcombs vanquish Berkeley with a grin."

The impression made by his fascinating character and conversation may be estimated from several facts. Bishop Atterbury, when asked his opinion of Berkeley by his namesake, Earl Berkeley, exclaimed, "So much understanding, so much knowledge, so much innocence, and such humility, I did not think had been the portion of any but angels till I saw this gentleman." Pope ends a comparison with the well-known line,

"To Berkeley every virtue under heaven."

Once, when visiting the Pembroke family at Wilton, he had to leave by stratagem. Miss Vanhomrigh, the Vanessa of Swift's strange history, who had only met Berkeley once at a party, on her death left him heir, with another gentleman, to her fortune of eight thousand pounds.

The years from 1718 to 1720 Berkeley spent chiefly in travel on the continent as secretary or tutor. These years of large intercourse with men and nature were not lost upon his powers of keen observation. They added greatly to his stores of knowledge and experience, widened his charity, and furnished both material and illustrations in abundance for future use. We get a dim story of an interview he had in Paris with the aged philosopher, the Abbé Malebranche. The story runs, that the

controversy between them grew so warm as to aggravate a complaint from which the Abbé was suffering, and hasten his death. Berkeley was wittily, let us hope not truly, said, in allusion to Malebranche's theory, to have been "the occasional cause" of the philosopher's death. In 1713 appeared the three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. This work is just the Principles of human Knowledge presented in the form of dialogue, to meet the case of ordinary readers. Hylas is the champion of matter, Philonous of idealism. Whatever judgment we may form on the subject in dispute, there will not be two opinions as to the perfection of the style. The ease, grace, wit, and transparent clearness have never been surpassed. On this account the work must always keep its place among English classics. Professor Fraser calls it, "the gem of British metaphysical literature," and adds, "He emerged in provincial Ireland the most elegant writer of the English language for philosophical purposes who had then or who has since appeared, at a time too when Ireland, like Scotland, was in a state of provincial barbarism."

REUSS'S HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE."

(Concluded from page 537.)

"THE Gospel" is the subject of the second Part of the volume before us; and here the Person of Jesus necessarily commands attention. We are not sure whether Professor Reuss does not shrink from undertaking the treatment of so difficult a theme, though it is right to bear in mind that he considers "the exposition of the teaching of Jesus to be the best exposition of His Person." His remarks are brief, but discriminating. It is asked, "Can it be affirmed, that each one of those who came in contact with Christ fully comprehended Him, or if it is not more probable that each gives to us the impression which the person and words of the Master produced upon himself?" There are, without doubt, difficulties involved in the question as to what, in its full extent and import, Jesus actually taught: His words offer themes for deepest meditation, which may be continued by successive generations without exhausting their profound significance. But, in estimating the report which the Apostles give of their Master as a teacher, the gift of the promised Spirit does not appear to be sufficiently recognized by Professor Reuss. It is very obvious that the disciples were utterly incapable of apprehending the meaning of many things which Christ declared during the time of His immediate presence with them. They were more especially affected by His personal influence; and were in that condition of mind, we are equally certain, which incapacitated them for competently reporting what fell from His lips. But the change which passed upon them through the gift of the Spirit is one of the greatest marvels in human history. Under the illumination of the Holy Ghost, they rose at once

to the height of the position to which they were called. It is further asked, “Did Jesus teach any doctrine, in the common acceptation of the word?" We all know that He did not formulate so many articles of faith; but His sayings contained the germs of all the great truths which were afterwards distinctly enunciated by the Apostles. It may be said, with a qualification, that His design was "not to put new doc. trine in the place of the old; but to bring new life where there previously had been none :" He, no doubt, sought especially "to change men them. selves." This, however, we must distinctly hold, could only be done through a change of their sentiments and beliefs; and this could only be produced by positive and appreciable teaching. Having said this much, we may now observe that Professor Reuss proposes to present the religious ideas of Jesus, embracing His relation to Judaism; the principal elements of Christian theology as found in His teaching; and, as the Kingdom of God was His fundamental idea, to discover" the elements of which it consists."

"The time is fulfilled." The first words of the Divine Son are full of hope and promise. "The Gospel and the Law" are connected. Jesus linked the instruction of His disciples with the past; and not with any of the forms of thought existing in His own time: he took a firm hold of Mosaism; not, indeed, for the purpose of its restoration, but to point forward to all for which it prepared the way. He placed Himself above all former revelation or teaching, however true in itself, by merging it in His own fuller and more spiritual revelations. By estab lishing the principle that all true morality is based upon the inward life, and must flow from Divinely-implanted impulses, He showed also the deficiency of mere outward obedience to legal enactments. Mosaism is not only transformed by Him, but is raised above itself. He thus destroys the old temple of the legal Theocracy, and lays the foundation of the new kingdom of God. The task of our author is here to trace the elements of this kingdom in its spiritual character, and in its universality. Jewish exclusiveness must cease: for a place in the new kingdom all peoples are eligible. The first Christians were slow to apprehend this grand conception. The kingdom of Jesus was also to obtain its establishment in connection with His own advent: it was not something to be founded hereafter, but a present reality to be carried forward through the ages to its full realization.

We are surprised that this fundamental idea is not more largely dwelt upon by Professor Reuss, since abundant material for the treatment of it is found in the Parables, and in the discourse recorded in Matt. xxiv. There we find the various aspects of the Kingdom are presented, with the mode of its development in the case of both the individual and the multitude. Its universal ascendancy is predicted, notwithstanding the fact that there may be some who, in their self-determination, may refuse to enter it, down to the period of its consummation. As Jesus looked upon the temple from Mount Olivet, He beheld in prophetic vision the history of the world through all time: the fall and dis solution of the Jewish nationality; the conflicts of human passion and interests; and the struggle which is to issue in the triumph of His own cause. There is scarcely any portion of the teaching of our Lord

" 618 which is more suggestive than that concerning the destiny of His Church, which was to be founded upon the rock of His own Person, and which would overcome all forms of opposition, and ultimately gather the world within its enclosure.

Professor Reuss proceeds to give his views of the "ideas" of Jesus on "Conversion," "Perfection," and "Faith." The arrangement of topics here is not, in our judgment, a happy one; and there is some confusion of thought in the treatment of these subjects. No doubt an attempt is made to reduce the Saviour's ideas to consecutive order; but we do not think it is successful. There is no clear distinction drawn between repentance, in the sense of turning away from sin to God, and conversion, which is represented as a radical, spiritual change in the principles and dispositions of the individual. In the mind of Jesus, faith is an essential condition of membership in His Kingdom; and should certainly have been discussed before "Perfection." The chapters in this portion of the Professor's work are important, as they deal with the statements of Christ concerning the inner spiritual life, and its manifestations in a pure morality which loftily transcended the externalism and legality which prevailed around Him. In the cultivation of this high condition of purity and love man is to obtain his perfection. "Faith" is treated in its nature, source, and object. It is essentially trust in God; and in its moral aspect God is its immediate Source. Reason and spiritual feeling are not opposed: both are required in the sphere of true religion. This faith, notwithstanding, is a human act. Thus arises the distinction between "calling" and "election." Calling," is universal; "election" implies the fulfilment of its conditions. Jesus never teaches the destruction of human freedom: election is a judgment based on man's conduct. If any are excluded from God's Kingdom, it is the result of personal refusal to enter. Man, though free, is not left to his own strength. The Holy Spirit is a new element of power," power from on high,"-and His function it is to minister to men all the spiritual light and influence they require. While faith ascends to God, the Spirit descends from God to man: this mutual action produces a right relation between the two. This aspect of the Divine relation to man is a special point in the teaching of Jesus. God becomes the Author and Preserver of the spiritual life and general interests of the Christian; and so becomes also the ideal of perfection, after which as a "son" of God he is to aspire. The fact that the Saviour promises His perpetual presence with His disciples clearly intimates His superi ority to the common race of man. Christ is the Head of the Kingdom of God, and essentially the Kingdom itself, thus presenting the twofold object of faith. While He called upon men to repent and believe that they might enter the Kingdom, He thereby called them to enter into the closest personal union with Himself,-to surrender their whole being to Him, and to find in Him the sustenance of their spiritual life.

Who is this Person who comes to mankind with the offer of salvation which He connects immediately with His own death? What does he declare concerning His own Person? He alludes to Himself as the Messiah; but for obvious political reasons He suppresses the proclamation of Himself as such, especially designating Himself, "the Son of Man," which was a proper name of the Messiah. Why is this designation