faltering? The message of John the Baptist still echoes in their ears, "Art thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" But there is one heart at least whose inmost depths are made conscious of the Divine Presence-one voice breaks the stillness with the emphatic declaration, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And

Jesus had already taught (Matt. xi. 27) that "no man knows the Son but the Father." It is, therefore, manifest that in making this confession Peter had been admitted into that glorious though mystical union with the Father and the Son which Jesus prayed for before He suffered: "I in them, and thou in me, that we may be made perfect in one." being thus made perfect in Him, how appropriate is the response of our Lord, "Blessed are thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father." "And" (as a blessed consequence of this new relationship) "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter"—the old man, Simon, is lost in the new man. Peter, now a living stone, has become a "partaker of the Divine nature," and so built upon, and partaking of the life of the Son of God, of that living Rock which followed His Church in the wilderness, whence the living waters flowed, and still flow on for ever. Thus what the Master was, such in his measure was the servant. Not "above" but " as" his Master; from his renewed nature, also "flow rivers of living water." That Peter never applied to himself exclusively or chiefly this promise which belongs to all the children of God, is evident. He who bade the elders to whom he wrote not to act as "lords over God's heritage, but as examples to the flock," and who described his fellow believers generally as they had come to the "living stone," as being also built up "living stones," could fall into no such self-delusion. Happy are they who, recog

nizing in the history of Peter the work, the marvellous work, of Divine Grace, transforming the corruptible into the incorruptible, the earthly into the heavenly experience the like precious change of nature and of name, and know themselves to be "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone."

*

* Rev. ii. 17, and iii. 12.

F. TAYLOR.

PRAYER AND ALMS.

"THY prayers and thine alms are come up as a memorial before God." Prayers, that we can understand; but alms are then works, after all, that by which men become meritorious in the sight of God? To answer this, observe, alms may assume two forms. They may be complete or incomplete. Alms complete-works which may be enumerated, estimated, deeds done and put in as so much purchase, ten times ten thousand such will never purchase heaven. But the way in which a holy man does his alms is quite. different from this. In their very performance, done as pledges of something more, done with a sense of incompleteness, longing to be more nearly perfect, they become so many aspirations rising up to God; sacrifices of thanksgiving, ever ascending like clouds of incense, that rise and rise, in increasing volumes, still dissatisfied and still aspiring. Alms in this way become prayers-the highest prayers; and all existence melts and resolves itself into a prayer. A life of prayer is a life whose litanies are ever fresh acts of self-devoting love. There was no merit in those alms of Cornelius; they were only poor imperfect aspirations, seeking the ear of God, and heard and answered there."

F. W. ROBERTSON.

"THE REIGN OF LAW." *

THERE are few things more likely to lead honest enquirers to doubt the truth of Christianity than the assertion, or even the evident suspicion, on the part of professed Christians that the tendencies of modern science are Anti-Christian. Hence the importance, not always fully recognized by those who are entirely satisfied with their own theological creed-the importance to others if not to themselves-of a reconciliation between religion and science.

The work which it is proposed to notice here— "The Reign of Law," by the Duke of Argyll-is a contribution towards this work of reconciliation.

It is written by a firm, candid Christian, who is evidently fully alive to the necessity of such a reconciliation, who cannot in anywise accept the doctrine of those who would have science and religion "kept apart as belonging to wholly different spheres of thought:" who is fully aware how "natural and convenient an escape" such a doctrine may be "to those who are troubled to reconcile what they have been taught to believe with what they have come to know," but who finds "one objection to it, and that the fatal objection, that it is not true." (pp. 55, 56.)

"We may believe," the Duke writes, "and we must believe, both in nature and religion, many things which we cannot understand; but we cannot really believe two propositions which are felt to be contradictory. It helps us nothing in such a difficulty to say that the one proposition belongs to reason, and the other to faith. The endeavour to reconcile

*The Reign of Law. By the Duke of Argyll. Alexander Strahan London, 1867.

them is a necessity of the mind. We are right in thinking that, if they are both indeed true, they can be reconciled, and if they really are fundamentally opposed, they cannot both be true. The error may be in our theology, or it may lie in what we are pleased to call our science. It may be that some dogma, derived by tradition from our fathers, is having its hollowness betrayed by that light which sometimes shines upon the ways of God out of a better knowledge of his works. It may be that some proud and rash generalization of the schools is having its falsehood proved by the violence it does to the deepest instincts of our nature."

And the Duke proceeds to instance "the conclusion to which the language of some scientific men is evidently pointing, that great general laws, inexorable in their operation, and causes in endless chain of invariable sequence, are the governing powers in nature, and that they leave no room for any special direction or Providential ordering of events." he rightly urges that, "If this be true, it is in vain to deny its bearing on religion." For, in that case, "what can be the use of prayer? Can laws

hear us ?"

And

The Duke thus seizes hold of the practical, fundamental difficulty which science seems to have started in the way of religion-how the "reign of law" can be reconciled with the Providence of God and answer to prayer and to solve this difficulty becomes the main object of his book.

To solve the difficulty, not to get rid of it. For he finds himself unable to deny the existence of these natural laws. He does not shrink from acknowledging that there is evidence of the "reign of law" in every department of knowledge-in the realm as well of mind as of matter, as well of political as of physical science. "The reign of law in nature is indeed, so far as we can observe it, universal." (p. 5.) Nor is this a mere concession, intended to conciliate

scientific readers, it is a conviction which the Duke takes great pains to impress upon his fellow Christians; for it is fair to infer that a work which was in part first published in "Good Words" was specially intended for Christian readers. And hence the value of the book. For is it not better that Christians should learn from a Christian to relax or modify whatever there may be in their views inconsistent with the facts of science than that they should be driven to do so by an antagonist of Christianity?

Some readers may be disappointed at what they may consider the incompleteness of the work. Upon the question of the Reign of Law in Christian Theology the Duke "has shrunk from entering," as "too inseparably connected with religious controversy." "Painfully conscious" himself "of the narrow range of the work," he "offers it only as a small contribution to the discussion of a boundless subject." But its value is, I think, not lessened by its modest aim. The enquiry so far as it goes is most ably conducted. Throughout the reasoning is clear and compact, and there are some passages of exceeding beauty. One chapter, on the necessity of contrivance in the flight of birds, has been singled out as of extraordinary power and interest by almost all reviewers; and the chapter on the "Reign of Law in Politics" is in itself worthy of a separate notice.

The spirit, too, in which the book is written is beyond all praise. There is not a hard word, or sneer, or uncandid imputation of motive, from first to last; and the fruit of an example so rare in controversy, has already been manifest in the tone in which it has been reviewed. Having said this, I shall endeavour, not to spare the reader the labour, or to rob him of the profit of a perusal of the work for himself, but simply to point out what seems to me to be the result of the enquiry-what is practically

.