and found almost all his colleagues, the Duke included, opposed to him. He then, naturally enough, resigned. This was inevitable; but it ought to have been followed by another step. Having persuaded himself that the corn-laws ought to be repealed, he ought to have given a hearty support to Lord John Russell in carrying that measure. But when Lord John

asked for that support, it was withheld; and the Whig leader, knowing that Sir Robert had a majority in the House of Commons, was forced to give up the task. Then came the question, what was to be done? With a feigned gush of loyalty and patriotism, Peel said to the Duke, "I will not desert the queen!" And the Duke afterwards told the House of Lords: "I was delighted with him, and told him I would stand by him."

Now the difficulty was wholly of Peel's own making. If he had given his hearty support to Lord John Russell, all would have gone on smoothly. But he was bent on having the glory, such as it was, of repealing the corn-laws; and therefore, he first makes it impossible for Lord John to take the government, and then exclaims, in loyal fervour, "I will not desert the queen"!

That this "ingenious manoeuvre" should have succeeded with the Duke, showed convincingly that he was not the sagacious, far-seeing leader in politics which he was in war. He undertook the task which Peel had thus imposed upon him; forced the corn-law-repeal bill through the House of Lords, without saying one word in its favour; resigned, with the rest of the ministry, in the autumn, and declared his intention of taking no further share in party politics. And from that time commenced the last and most honoured and venerated stage of his life. Most men had known, all along, that, in taking part in political controversies, the Duke had never been actuated by any personal ambition. It was scarcely possible for either the Crown or the Parliament to add anything to the honours which he had already received. His duty to his sovereign, and the real interest which he felt in his country's welfare, had been his ruling motives at all periods. This circumstance, however, could not reconcile men to his support of Catholic emancipation, or to his opposition to reform. But now, all this was ended. His seventy-fifth year was passed, and men began to gaze on him with the calmness of admiration with which they behold the last minutes of the setting sun. "They loved his personal dignity, his manliness, his simplicity, and strength." most remarkable characteristic was the union of common sense with lofty feeling; of matter of fact and chivalry. He was a man of great actions, but small professions; a knight errant without extravagance; a man of business, whose career was a romance. Recalling the memory of mighty contests and of

"His

great successes, that good grey head, with its halo of former glories, stood amidst the later times like the peak of a submerged world.”

Personally, his last days were doubtless his best days. Of the middle period of his life, when a widower still in his prime, and earnestly engaged in political strife, we cannot speak otherwise than doubtfully. Common rumour, often false, ascribed to him habits and manners akin to those of the camp which he had but recently left. But, unquestionably, from his seventieth year and onwards, an outward change took place, and with Wellington the outward and the inward always resembled each other. It is well known that during the last ten years of his life he read many books on the highest and noblest subjects; of which, in busier times, he would have little cared to hear. Mr. Elliott's great work on prophecy was carefully perused by him, and it was not the only work of that class which formed part of his studies. A singular incident is mentioned by colonel Hamley, of his latest days. On the 12th of September, 1852, he wrote to a friend: "I had a letter this morning from a madman, who announces that he is a messenger from the Lord, and that he will deliver his message to me to-morrow morning. We shall see." On the 13th, not this messenger, but a different one came, and he was summoned to behold, personally, "Him, in whose hand his breath was, and whose were all his ways."

Our readers will hardly be in any danger of confounding the different orders and classes of great men. It was a strong and remarkable distinction which was made by our Lord, when he said: "Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist ;-notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." And assuredly, if John fell far below Stephen or Paul, Abner the son of Ner ranked infinitely below John. Still, honour of a certain kind was his due. And when the eye ranges over the great men of the world's secular history, it can hardly discover a name which shines with a brighter splendour, as a loyal subject, a true lover of his country, a high-minded and noble man, and a consummate general, than that of Arthur Wellesley, duke of Wellington.

THREE PAMPHLETS ON THE ATONEMENT CONTROVERSY.

1. The True Doctrine of the Atonement Asserted and Vindicated. By Daniel Wilson, M.A., Vicar of Islington, and Rural Dean. Seeley & Co., 1860.

2. The Atonement: An Argument.

By the Very Rev. Daniel Bagot, B.D., Dean of Dromore, &c. London: Groombridge & Sons. 1860.

3. The Atonement, Considered in reference to Catholic Antiquity and Existing Controversy; with some notice of the Publications of Dean Bagot, and the Rev. Daniel Wilson. Rivington, 1860.

THERE is, we are told, no evil in the moral world without its corresponding good. The biting frost pulverizes the soil which it had hardened into stone; and the dreary winter of the Atonement controversy is already budding into spring. We have been contented too long with surface arguments and hackneyed statements of the truth. The plough begins to do its work again; and the rich sub-soil is thrown up to the surface. We have in the two pamphlets at the head of our list more of the results of patient thought upon this great doctrine than we have lately met within so small a compass; and in the third we have some views upon the subject which require attention.

The vicar of Islington first examines the doctrine of the Atonement as it is laid down in the word of God, and proceeds afterwards to point out the perils which arise to the church from inadequate and erroneous views regarding it. The doctrine he lays down is that which we believe to be the only scriptural one,—namely, that Christ died on Calvary, that he might offer a propitiation for man's guilt; that his sufferings were vicarious; that he stood in our place; that he became our substitute, and endured the penalty which our sins had incurred. The proofs of this he gives from Scripture, and confirms his argument from our Prayer-Book, and Articles, and Homilies. Before entering on this inquiry, he premises two cautions: "the one, against making statements in reference to the Atonement which would seem to represent God the Father as a God of wrath and anger, taking pleasure in the sufferings inflicted on his Son;" the other, against speaking on the Atonement "as if it were the only method that God could have adopted for man's salvation." We have no right, he thinks, thus to limit the power and resources of an infinite Being. We agree with him in this; and would add, that there are other points in doctrinal theology on which it often gives us pain to hear broad assertions made as to what God is obliged to do,-what he can

and cannot accomplish. We agree with Mr. Wilson: "It is enough for us that this is the divinely-appointed method by which God has been pleased to render man's salvation consistent with the vindication of His own attributes as a God of holiness, justice, and truth;" and yet, when we consider the vast, unspeakable worth of the sacrifice, we are almost driven reverently, and in silence, to fall back upon the conclusion that God himself saw no other method of saving man; for while His perfect wisdom would select the best of all methods, His perfect goodness and mercy would surely lead Him to choose the least expensive one. Does not the text (Isa. lix. 16) lead to the same conclusion? "He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor; therefore his arm brought salvation unto him, and his righteousness it sustained him." But we receive the caution, and feel that it is better to be silent and adore.

Mr. Wilson traces the whole of the false system which now agitates the church to "an attempt to graft Christianity on ancient philosophy." This is perfectly true. Those who have some acquaintance with the history of the church during the second and third centuries will at once perceive how shallow and how threadbare is the whole device. It is nothing more than a reproduction, very slightly modified, of the heresies and absurdities-for many of their notions were too absurd to be graced with the name of heresy-of the mongrel Christians of Syria and Asia, who had a smattering of the Alexandrine philosophy, mixed up with an imperfect acquaintance with the facts rather than the doctrines of the gospel. The following sentences would find a place in one of the early chapters of Mosheim's or Neander's history, and be quite as applicable to some of the so-called Christians of the second and third centuries, as they are, in Mr. Wilson's pages, to the Oxford movement.

"The Platonic axiom lies at the root of the whole, that human reason can, under favourable circumstances, attain to truth and certainty. This doctrine is connected with the mystical pantheistic notion that certain emanations of Deity pervade the whole human race. Christ, we are told, is the representative man. Christ dwells in every man-the source of all light, the real bond of human society and of the whole universe. Hence it follows, that the same Divine influence which inspired the sacred writers also inspires mankind at large, whether heathen or christian."

This pantheistic notion, carried out to its full extent, invests the world, and indeed all nature, animate and inanimate, with the attributes of Deity. It was the source of the degrading superstitions of ancient Egypt. It now gives a charm, and offers an excuse, for the worst indecencies of the Hindoo

idolatry in the eyes of Hindoo sages, and is the very ground on which practices too disgusting to be mentioned are justified by refined and accomplished Brahmins. And now, amongst the leaders of public opinion in England, there are men who avow these principles, though they shrink with horror from the conclusions to which they lead. It is a mournful sight, when English divines are gravely considering the merits of that pantheism which the wiser heathen of Rome long since treated with contempt! If they are too proud to be instructed by the Bible, they may at least blush when they turn to Cicero and read his treatise De Naturâ Deorum. The grave and delicate irony of the wise old heathen may put to shame the superciliousness which flouts the authority of St. Paul. There is an eloquent and argumentative chapter in Jules Simon's recent work on "Natural Religion," which, as coming from a very free thinker and an unprofessional quarter, may also, perhaps, be listened to. We have seen no attempt to answer it. Wilson's valuable pamphlet will, we have no doubt, be the means of bringing repose to many anxious minds, and of showing the dangers of the new theology to those who are exposed to its baneful influence.

Mr.

2. Not less valuable is the argument of the dean of Dromore. It is thrown into the form of propositions, which, in a short treatise of fifty pages, the dean undertakes to examine and illustrate. We give them in full :

"1. We shall endeavour," he says, " to show the general nature and necessity of an atonement.

"2. We shall prove that an atonement could not have been offered by the sinner himself.

"3. We shall show what should be the necessary attributes of such an atonement as God would accept.

"4. We shall show that Christ as Mediator has offered an atonement possessing the required characteristics.

"5. We shall prove by Scripture testimony that His sufferings and death did constitute an actual atonement for sin.

"6. We shall briefly examine some of the leading popular objections against this doctrine.

"7. We shall deduce a few practical reflections for the subject."

These, of course, are not fully discussed, but a few heads suggestive of thought are presented to the reader in a very lucid manner under each of them. Thus, under the sixth proposition, replies are briefly suggested to four popular objections: namely, that the death of Christ may be accounted for simply as His having died as an example, and to prove the truth of the doctrines which He taught. Why, then asks the dean, should His death be so often spoken of as a sacrifice for sin; and why do we not find a sacrificial phraseology employed by the sacred writers in describing the death