why he could not join the Evangelical Alliance, its aggressive policy toward the Church of Rome. Professor Leo, of Halle, with a few other leading men of the party, even held, in September, 1860, a conference with a number of prominent Roman Catholics in order to devise means, if possible, for uniting the Roman Catholics and the conservative and High Church Protestants of Germany in a common combat against the democratic and progressive tendencies of the age. In determining the platform of the conference, the Protestants participating in it went so far in their concessions as to declare the temporal power of the pope the most legitimate sovereignty of Europe, and to call the "division of the Church" in the sixteenth century a national calamity. With this step Hengstenberg has gently remonstrated in the preface to his Church Gazette for 1861; but while rebuking his friends, he declares himself that he has no sympathies whatever for the national movements in Italy, for Cavour and Garibaldi; that the modern attacks on the papacy appear to him to involve an attack on our common Christianity, and that he finds the antichrist more in the opponents of the papacy than in the papacy itself, and that in this point he differs from the Protestants of former centuries who lived in other circumstances. He even expresses his belief that the fall of the Roman Church would not be advantageous to the evangelical Church, but in many respects injurious. These views are fully shared by the majority of the party, and seem to be spreading, as the large circulation of Roman Catholic books in Protestant districts, their frequent recommendation by Protestant ministers, the favor with which the project of a political union between the High Church Protestants and the Roman Catholics is received, and other signs of the times indicate. We therefore fully share the opinion of those who fear that the High Lutherans of Prussia, under the able leadership of Hengstenberg, are drifting in an un-Protestant and Romeward direction. Whether this tendency will finally result in as severe losses to Protestantism as those brought about in England by the Tractarian movement, or whether a counter current will set in, in time, to lead the bulk of the party back to a more consistent Protestant basis, the future alone can determine. But while deploring the fatal influence which the ill-guided course of Professor Hengstenberg has already exercised on German Protestantism, we cannot but acknowledge the many noble features in his character. He is not, as has often been charged upon him, especially by the rationalists, a vacillating flatterer of the secular government. He has attacked several provisions of the Prussian law which appeared to him to be at variance with the doctrine of the Bible, with the utmost severity, and called on the clergy to disobey them; he has denounced the Freemasons and other secret societies, which he considers as unchristian, with unparalleled violence, although it was generally known in Prussia that the prince of Prussia (the present king) was the grand master of the Freemasons; he has demanded the most stringent legislation of Church and State against dueling, although it is the favorite practice of the high aristocracy. He has, we believe, misled the Protestant Church of a great nation, and thereby done great injury to the cause of evangelical Protestantism; yet this course has been prompted by no impure motives, but only by the belief that he was laboring for the re-establishment of true Christianity. In the preceding article we have only discussed the great influence of Hengstenberg on the religious life and the ecclesiastical organization of the German Churches. He is equally distinguished as the author of many excellent exegetical writings, and on this field he has gained the applause and the admiration of the evangelical denominations in general. We may have occasion to discuss his achievements in biblical literature, and his influence on the scientific theology of Germany, in another article. ART. VII.-WESLEYANISM AND TAYLORISM-SECOND REPLY TO THE NEW ENGLANDER. Wesley's Sermons. On Rom. v, 15, and on Gen. iii, 19. New Englander. November, 1859. Art. IV. Dr. Taylor on Moral Government. Methodist Quarterly Review. New Englander. May, 1860. January, 1860. Synopsis of the Art. X. Reply to the Methodist Methodist Quarterly Review. October, 1860. Art. IX. Wesleyanism and Taylorism-Reply to the New Englander. New Englander. July, 1861. Art. III. Theology of WesleyReply to the Methodist Quarterly Review. THE singular attempt perseveringly prosecuted in the pages of the New Englander, to interpolate into the theology of Methodism one of the obsolescent dogmas of ultra-Calvinism, forces upon us the task of discussing one of the highest points of human speculation. It were to be wished that such a discussion should be pure from any alloy of malign feeling. But it comes upon us in the shape of so strange an imputation, and is urged with so resolute a pertinacity, that it necessarily contracts some personal elements. The reviewer complains of our want of candor, of our imputing ignorance and claiming superiority. But the article to which our last was a reply was anything but amiable. It was written in a tone of sullen assumption, and with so little appreciation of the hazard the writer was encountering, that there seemed a demand for some wholesome severity. His articles present from end to end not one touch of personal courtesy to reciprocate; yet the diminution of some unpleasant traits renders asperity less unavoidable. We, therefore, shall now perform what, as we announced in our last number to be our apparent duty, namely, place on record the complete and easy refutation of the entire attempt. Never in all our experience have we known an outcry so excessive and so irrational about an opponent's not making verbatim quotations. These complaints, in order to be satisfied, would require us to quote the whole of Mr. Wesley's two sermons and the large share of his own first article of sixtythree solid pages. They are false in point of fact, for the proportion of our quoted matter to our original is far greater than his own. Our synoptical notice of his article was full one quarter quotation, and our reply, full four in fourteen pages. With regard to Mr. Wesley's sermons we had a fair right to assume that nearly every one of our readers had a copy in his possession; and not being able to quote the whole, we did thenext best thing, gave a condensation, after specifying the particular sermons, and inviting our readers, as our check, to verify our accuracy. Besides, of the five points we made upon Mr. Wesley's sermons, three are expressly founded upon what he did not say; and how shall we quote a man's silence? But how pedantic the notion that verbatim quotations are any test or security of fairness! A dishonest disputant can as easily misrepresent in quoting as in omitting to quote. Our reviewer, as every one else, necessarily bases a large share of his remarks on unquoted passages, otherwise an article would have to fill a Quarterly. Fairness consists not in furnishing an opponent's express terms, but in stating with a truthful spirit his exact positions and giving the full force of his argument. That to the best of our power we have done. Our opponent most self-complacently errs in imagining that he can say anything that we are not ready to face before any audience. Happy, indeed, should we be if both Reviews presented the entire discussion; for so clear and conscious is our own mastery of our opponent upon every point, that nothing would gratify us more than that the readers of either should be the readers of both. Near two pages and a half does our reviewer take at the close of his article in exposing to the readers of the New Englander how great an ignoramus is the writer of this article. It seems there are in the history of past New England theology two Dr. Wests, one of Newport, and the other of latitude to us unknown; one being Stephen and the other Samuel. Now these two Wests, in our reply, we blended into one, making "a mythical personage;" and as one was Calvinistic and the other Arminian, we made him out a decidedly self-contradictory and self-explosive character. At this, our masterpiece of ignorance of matters and persons so conspicuous in the universe, our reviewer naturally falls into a catalepsy of overwhelming wonder and pity. Can it be possible that a man should discuss theology and not know how (as Hudibras almost prophetically hath it) "to divide Between the West and north West side?" Recovering from his swoon, so does he compassionate our "awkwardness," our "attitude so painful," our "embarrassment,” that in a fervor of benevolence he professedly strikes from his article every "sarcasm" and "epithet" that may inflict upon us a "pang." All this he says of an article which repeatedly questions our temper, honor, and honesty. Using, perhaps we might say abusing, the pages of a Quarterly of eminent standing, embracing among its readers a large share of the ablest divines and most accomplished scholars of our country, to exhibit the ignorance of the editor of this Review, he lets out, as a revelation and a surprise, the ambushed fact that we had plainly never "seen the writings of either of these divines," and only knew them by "rumor!" And yet he very well knows that we repeated again and again, almost to an ostentation, the positive profession of our unacquaintance with the body of old New England Calvinistic divines. Of Edwards alone did we speak with peremptory self-commitment; and we knew a Dr. West, not by "rumor," but solely from the pages of the younger Edwards. In our Synopsis we reported the views of Edwards, West, and Hopkins professedly as specific information to ourself and readers, from our learned opponent's first article; near one quarter of a page of our reply (page 666) is a continued implication that we had never read their pages; of Dr. Taylor, whom we have cursorily examined, we were careful to speak merely "as represented by the reviewer;" and even in the few lines regarding Dr. West we cautiously entered two caveats, "we believe" and "if we mistake not;”" so that all the affair amounts to is, that we were mistaken in a matter of historic fact touching two obscure New England divines, just where we apprehended, and expressed the apprehension, that we might mistake. All this the reviewer had before his eyes. And yet, amid eulogies upon his own scrupulous fairness in quotation, blended into |