even now speaking both at Oxford, and far and wide over the earth; compared with the direct papal voice heard from Rome and elsewhere, asserting directly the prerogatives of Rome's bishop as CHRIST'S VICEGERENT ON EARTH. So that the now existing state of professing Christendom, and character of its three most influential spirits gone forth to war against Christ's gospel, seem to me to corroborate very strikingly, not to weaken, the interpretation I have given of the two Beasts. As to my view of the Image of the Beast, which the reviewer hints at as presenting other difficulties, I cannot answer his objections, as he does not particularize any. But I may perhaps be permitted to mention that within a day or two after my first perusal of the Review, I received a letter from one whose praise is in-not the churches of Liverpool only, but those of the three kingdoms, stating, in allusion to another part of my work, that its argument and evidence did not so immediately and irresistibly commend itself for true to his mind as that of certain other parts: instancing thus, "as, for example, the Image of the Beast."

In conclusion let me say that, so far as I can understand the prophecy, all interpretations which explain the first Beast as the secular kingdoms under a common secular head, such as Charlemagne, Otho, and their descendants, are not only unmaintainable, but almost excluded à priori even from the arena of the discussion; what is so strikingly said in Apoc. xiii. 7, 8 of the universal power and worship attaching to the Beast's ruling head, being a characteristic which most notoriously (if any fact whatsoever be notorious in history) did not attach to these Frank and German emperors. On the other hand I venture to believe that the solution given in the "Hora" is in all its parts maintainable, and that which may with great force be used against the papal errors. It seems to me to have been the oversight or error of former Protestant expositors respecting three things; viz., 1. the primary seventh head of the Beast, (or its equivalent the one and only seventh head of the dragon,) as signifying Diocletian's tetrarchical government of the pagan Roman empire; 2. the Beast's new seventh or chronologically eighth head, as signifying the Popes in the distinct character of Christ's vicar, or Antichrist; 3. the Beast's Image as signifying the Papal General Councils,-that has made the Protestant use of this part of the Apocalyptic prophecy comparatively ineffective hitherto in the controversy with Rome.

I beg to apologize for the length of this letter; and am, Sir,-not without a sincere sense of obligation to my two reviewers for the very warm and friendly manner in which they have written of my work, your very faithful servant, E. B. ELLIOTT.

THE

CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW

AND CHRONICLE.

OCTOBER, 1844.

1. SIR ROWLAND ASHTON: a Tale of the Times. By Lady C. LONG. 2 vols. London: Nisbet. 1844.

2. SELF-SACRIFICE; or, the Chancellor's Chaplain. By the Author of "The Bishop's Daughter." London: Bogue. 1844. 3. MARY SPENCER: a Tale of the Times. By A. HOWARD. London: Seeleys. 1844.

4. DIFFICULTIES OF A YOUNG CLERGYMAN IN TIMES OF DIVISION. London: Seeleys. 1844.

5. MARGARET; or, the Pearl. By the Rev. C. B. TAYLER, M.A., Author of "May you like it," &c. London: Longmans. 1844.

THE Rev. E. Paget, rector of Ilford and chaplain to the bishop of Oxford, moved to a just shame for the incongruity and irrelevancy of his diverse callings, denied that Milford Malvoisin was a novel, because there was no love in it. Whether or not love be really necessary to constitute a novel, apparently to his reverend mind it constitutes the entire sin of one. Ladies of fashion have no such misgivings. Our first-named author is determined that her book shall be as much a novel as love can make it; and frankly avows her purpose. "I have endeavoured," says the preface, " to represent love in its highest degree, believing that in the very noblest characters it will always hold that place, and also thinking that it

1844.

4 Z

gives the love of God a much higher triumph to represent it as capable, which it truly is, of subduing the lofty and vehement feelings of men, than as able merely to control the tame and placid emotions of common-place character." Of the story, as such, we have nothing to say: except that we might wonder why, since love is of all times-and the narrative contains no other incident-it should be specifically called "A Tale of the Times." It is as well written, as interesting, and as probable, as such stories ordinarily are. But the thought presses upon us-and since our author is not present at our bar of inquisition, we must ask it of ourselves-Why do religious women write novels? Throughout the length and breadth of our acquaintance with the people of God-and our acquaintance with them has not been narrow and has not been short-we never met with any who would justify the "reading" of novels; who would professedly admit them to their libraries-arrange them on their tables-allow them to their families-or spend their own time upon them. Is this so general prohibitory agreement without a reason? Is the reason of it unknown? Is the danger of novel-reading so occult and inexplicable a thing, that no one knows where or what it is? and reverend divines may write novels if they put in no love-and religious women if they put in love enough-and every body read them if only they be called "Tales of the Times"? Let us be honest. Is there any harm in novel-reading, or is there not? And if there is, what is it? Honesty-honesty towards God, towards each other and ourselves, is the essential principle of practical godliness. A sound and rational understanding is its best help-mate; that we be neither deluded into unhallowed compromise, nor shackled by unnecessary scruples: for assuredly our Gracious Master is only less dishonoured by a blind and stupid self-denial in things good and lawful in themselves, than by an evasive and compromising self-indulgence in things questionable and unbecoming. It is requisite, therefore, that we be first honest, then reasonable, as well in what we prohibit as in what we allow-in what we renounce as in what we enjoy and we should be able to give a reason, to ourselves at least, for the practice as well as for the faith that separates the followers of Christ from an unbelieving world. Why then—we put it in plain terms, do religious people in particularthough they are not alone in this-so universally condemn the practice of novel-reading? If it be thought that it is only because the moral principle in these works is commonly erroneous; vicious passions are made familiar and seductive; religion falsified or exposed to ridicule; this is not always or necessarily so, and would seem to require selection, rather than prohibition. Or if it be

only because such reading is useless and unprofitable, and the pilgrim of time has none of it to spare; "the days of man are threescore years and ten-the Lord is at hand," and there is much to do neither is this without a limitation. There are, and must be, to the most laborious, times of mental recreation and unbending. Restriction would seem, in this case, the demand of conscience, rather than prohibition. Perhaps these two contingencies do constitute the limitation of such idle reading among the more sensible portion of mankind, without bringing the restraint of religious principle to bear upon the practice.

But we expect that the considerate Christian will go further; will not indulge himself habitually with a novel because it is a good one, or excuse himself for the practice because he has leisure hours and if so, he should have other and more comprehensive reasons. We believe them very easy for the spiritual mind to compass for itself, but hard to define in words, perhaps, to the apprehension of the carnal and the earthly. It is written, "To be spiritually-minded is life; to be carnally-minded is death." It is written again, "The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these two are contrary the one to the other." And again, "They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." A few such texts as these, albeit they are not few, might supply all the argument we require, and all the reasons an honest mind need want, for renouncing this and numerous other practices in which the world perceives no harm; in which there would be no harm if these conflicting principles were abiding in holy unity within us; if the whole man-the earthly and fleshly nature, together with the unearthly and the spiritual— were brought into subordination and conformity to the mind and will of God, and so to reconcilement with each other. If ever again there should be such a state-an earthly life whose pleasures are not dangerous-a nature whose innocent propensities need not to be restrained-a being whose mixed faculties and capabilities present no temptation to sin: the rule of life will be adapted to it; the moral law, or the law of conscience, perhaps, will then be again sufficient, and all that is lawful be again expedient.

Meantime the gospel addresses itself to a compound being— a mixed nature, never to be agreed, never to be at peace-" a strong man" and "a stronger," both armed for desperate conflict; this conflict not originating, as it is sometimes inconsiderately made to appear, in the mixed nature of man, as he came from the hands of his Creator, born half of earth and half of heaven-body and soul-a clod of dust inflated with the breath of Deity. There was inequality, but no conflict, then, between the

spiritual and the natural: man's carnal affections-say his love, for instance, which is our particular subject-subordinate always to the love of God, was holy, pure, exalted as itself. Perhaps it may be so again; perhaps it becomes so now, in measure as the sublimating influence of the divine nature tempers and controuls the residue of the mundane and the perishable. But in the fallen manhood it is not so: human affections are not sanctified, and are not subordinate. Our earthly love, therefore, like every other emotion of the natural heart, lusteth against the Spirit; refuses subjection, resists controul, and is found in perpetual conflict with it for the mastery. Neither again is this conflict simply incident to the fall as such; body, soul, and spirit are therein too well agreed to forego the spiritual and eternal, and bury themselves in the sensual and the earthly. Therefore it is, that we suppose in questions of this sort, a different line of argument and persuasion for the children of God, than might be brought to bear upon the children of this world. Our danger must be where our warfare is; and there our care and watchfulness; originating in the supervention of a new nature, without the extinction of the old; and consisting in the irreconcileable difference between them-between the principle of life and the principle of death-the likeness of the earthly and the likeness of the heavenly-the born of the flesh, which remains flesh, and the new-born in Christ, which is spirit; co-subsisting in every child of Adam, from the moment that he is regenerate of the Holy Ghost until he is perfected in death: terminated then not by the conversion and renewal of the whole man, but by separation from the body in which the principle of death abides, until it be raised in incorruption. How long, how sore, how fearful, this struggle is, who does not know that has tried it? And who can know that has not? At his first entry on the new life, the believer finds all his passions, powers, and feelings ranged on the side of earthliness, if not of sin; enlisted, pledged, and paid, with what golden drachmas sometimes!-to the sole service of the flesh! Each moment as he progresses he finds fresh opposition from within and from without: "within are fightings, and without are fears "-fightings for victory, and fears of defeat and shame. Not where he might have expected it-from his vicious and sinful propensities only; but, where he least expected it, from those interests, cares, affections, and desires, which are not only lawful and necessary in themselves, but may be-and to a certain extent must be, and ought to be-indulged and grati fied. By so much as it is easier to banish or put to death a rebellious subject, than to hold him in loyal and peaceable subjection, so are our lawful desires more hard to limit, than our lawless ones