hope was to remove the difficulties and objections, raised with much ingenuity and learning by one noble author, against the usual chronology. Our observations, we have reason to know, have brought conviction to several minds; and we trust that some fresh light has been thrown on that part of the sacred history. The recent discoveries of the inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes, at Baghestan and elsewhere, yield a further confirmation of the views here mentioned.

Either

The other question is more intricate. The scheme of Ussher, adopted in the margin of our Bibles, assigns 37 years current for our Lord's age at his death. All now agree, we believe, that this is erroneous. Either our Lord must have been inactive two or three years after his baptism, or else John have baptized two or three years before the Pharisees made their inquiry, and our Lord's age at baptism have been 33 years, instead of 30. view is really incredible. Hence we must either place the Nativity later or the Crucifixion earlier, than in that scheme. Mr. C. prefers the former change, but most other living chronologers, the latter, and with these we ourselves agree. To weigh the whole evidence on each side is a wide inquiry. But since Mr. C. rested chiefly on one argument, which he reckoned an absolute demonstration, and which we felt quite certain was contradictory and erroneous, our aim was to rectify this error, that the question might be decided by real, and not fictitious evidence. Our conclusion was, briefly, that either the years A.D. 30 or A.D. 33 is consistent with the week-day of the Crucifixion, and that the year A.D. 29, it is historically possible, though less probable, may be also reconciled with it. The same is true, we may add, though perhaps rather less probable still, of the years A.D. 31 and A.D. 34; since we cannot be quite certain that the Passover would not be delayed a month, as it was very near the equinox, and that the Pharisees would not transfer it from Thursday to Friday by the rule Badu or some similar cause. Five arguments remain; two external, in the testimony of Josephus and Dio to the times of Herod, and in that of the early writers to the date of the Passion; three internal, the dates in Luke iii. 1, and John ii. 20, and the prophecy of Daniel. The two first of these concur to favour the earlier dates. If the internal evidence were all adverse, we should not hesitate to prefer it to the other. But this we do not believe. Two of these three arguments, we are persuaded, are favourable to the earlier dates, and the passage in St. Luke may be harmonized with it by an appeal to Scripture usage combined with the known facts. of history. Hence, on the whole, our judgment concurs with that of Mr. Greswell, in the main outline of his system, when freed

from some palpable errors by which it is now disfigured. One of the chief of these, relating to the week-days, we have endeavoured to remove; and another, into which we cannot enter here, is his complex exposition of Daniel's prophecy. The nature of our periodical, however, forbids us to enter at length on the whole discussion.

One word is due, in parting, to our respected correspondent. It would be wearisome, and almost interminable, to open a new discussion on his former letter. It is enough to state our conviction that we can prove every paragraph to involve a mistake or fallacy, except the one which admits his own previous error, and that we see nothing in it which should make us retract one syllable that we have advanced before. We have made no oversight or false assumption about the nature of the days, in the axioms of the Synopsis. We had several reasons for explaining them of civil days, but the chief was our respect for Mr. C.'s judgment, to avoid convicting his demonstration of a still more inexcusable error. We should be truly grieved to have given any just cause for his ironical charge, of a want of urbanity. Our sincere wish was to use a double measure of courtesy, both on account of his age and piety, and a further reason, which we forbear to name. The Scaligerian style of his pamphlet, and its repeated charges, not only of ignorance, blunders, and stupidity, but of direct dishonesty, made it needful to clear ourselves, and to prove, as we have done, that these charges arose, almost in every instance, from half-knowledge or direct error. This we cannot retract, because we believe it to be true. Respect is due to age and piety, even in their confessed infirmities, but truth and equity have also their just claims.

But to apply to him the general title with which he seems to charge us in both letters, was far from our thoughts and feelings, and we are guiltless of that discourtesy. Our expressions of respect and honour were repeated and most sincere, and hence the duty his pamphlet imposed on us was irksome in the extreme. "Who can understand his errors?" We may have partially failed in our purpose; but those who read our articles, and compare them with the vindication, will give us some credit for the desire to exercise a Christian forbearance.

THE

CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW

AND CHRONICLE.

JUNE, 1847.

STEEPLETON; or, High Church and Low Church being the present Tendencies of Parties in the Church, exhibited in the History of FRANK FAITHFUL. By a CLERGYMAN. London: Longmans. 1847.

THE Conclusion of a book, like the postscript of a letter, is often the best key to its design. The conclusion of "Steepleton" will, we think, illustrate this remark, and serve, perhaps, to give our readers a better idea of what they may expect from it than any observations of our own. There is, at the same time, so much truth, and so much valuable advice, in this concluding chapter of the work, that we are glad, for the sake of its substantial contents, irrespective of its connexion with the narrative, to give it a place in our pages. Our opinion of the narrative itself we shall afterwards briefly state: but whether the following conclusion arises justly or not from the author's premises, it appears to us, on the whole, to convey a very just idea of our PRESENT DUTIES, and as such we quote it. The author of "Steepleton; or, High Church and Low Church," thus writes:

"The conclusion we have come to from the foregoing narrative relating to Frank Faithful, is, that the religious revival which began about twelve years ago, under the name of a return to true Church Principles,' when the Church seemed to be awaking from the sleep of a century, was but the revival of an effete superstition-of a superstition, however, which, should it ever regain the ascendency, rife as it is with the elements of old Popery, must bring upon us evils the most appalling and pernicious. It has been shown, in the course of this history of an individual, that, under that decep.

tive term, Church Principles,' there has been going on for the last twelve years, a secret system of perversion from Protestant truth to Popish error, which has deceived many, and which nearly succeeded in deceiving him. We have seen by what specious, but fallacious arguments-by what plausible, but untruthful representations-by what seemingly holy, but really hypocritical pretences, this new Romanizing sect-these Popish Jesuits in a Protestant dress-have aimed and endeavoured to bring the members of the Reformed Church of England off from the pure faith of their Protestant forefathers, and to involve them once more in all the errors and superstitions of the apostate Church of Rome. We have been let into a view behind the scenes of the working of the parties: how at first they flatter, in order to win and when they find they cannot win, will persecute. We have been taught by their acts, how, if ever they gain the ascendency and obtain power, they will use it against all who differ from them. We have learned that the High Church clergy will, for the most part, make common cause with them to put down the truth, because of their common principles. We have had their errors traced to their origin, and exhibited in their actual operations. Proof has been given us that these principles have led to Popery, must lead to Popery, and will lead to Popery. It has been evinced that the only way effectually to counteract them is by returning to Scripture principles. It has been clearly made manifest that the Low Church clergy are nearer both to the Scriptures and to their own Church than the High: that the latter tend much more to Romanism than the former; and that if error in doctrine, and superstition in practice, are allowed to come in, they will be followed by accumulated and overwhelming evils, involving alike the destruction of our Church and our nation."

Such are the author's conclusions. He thus proceeds:—

"And now the only question that remains is, 'What are our present duties? What is the practical moral of our story? what is the advice which we would give, both to the clergy and the laity?

"I. To our brethren of the clergy (to those of them, at least, who are honest in their intentions towards the Church, of whose doctrines as Protestants they have sworn their approval, and to whose services as Reformed they have pledged their adhesion,) we would humbly, but most earnestly, give the advice-by no means to yield in any degree to the insidious counsels of a plausible but clearly proved Romanizing party, in their pretended Church principles-in their style of preaching-in their mode of administering the ordinances of the Church-in their new arrangements and ornaments-in their so-called restorations ;-in all of which we may depend, they have some ulterior design, inimical to the purity and the perpetuity of the Protestant Reformed Church of England as now happily by law established.

"It is not, we think, sufficiently considered by many of the clergy, that, by adopting parts of the Tractarian system, they are giving a sanction to the whole; they are setting their imprimatur upon it in the eyes of the people. It is our conviction that Tractarianism is being furthered by others (and by many of the Low Church clergy too) much more effectively than it could be by the Tractarians themselves. By them it is brought in unsuspected and unopposed, where, if attempted by known Tractarians, it would be resisted. Their other principles being right, give it a cover: their character invests it with a lustre not its own. And the people, in general, do not very nicely distinguish between a part of a system and the whole. If a part be innocent, they will judge that it cannot be dangerous taken altogether: and they will act upon the principle ascribed to them by the poet

'Strike up the fiddles, let us all be gay:

'Laymen have leave to dance, if parsons play.'

Even admitting that there are parts of this system which are lawful, we

ought to remember that they may not be expedient-at least not at this time. It is by one clergyman adopting one part of the Tractarian system, as unexceptionable in itself or an improvement, and another another, that the whole is being fast brought into our Church to its inevitable total corruption. Let all, then, who love the Church, for the truth's sake, and would desire to preserve it pure, listen to our counsels; and for the present at least, admit of no innovations, and give no sanction by their example, to an essentially false system. But while they are zealous for all and in all that will really promote the spiritual edification of their people, and the advancement of true religion throughout the whole world, let them withstand every attempt to withdraw them from the faith of their Protestant forefathers-to corrupt the reformed Church by the re-introduction of Popish emblems and observances, and to lead them away from the pure fountain of truth-the Holy Scriptures-to what their own Church calls the stinking puddles of tradition.'

"Let it not, however, be understood that we would advise the clergy to become party men, in the commonly conceived, that is, the bad, sense of that term. No: let them abjure all mere party objects, and above all, a party spirit. Let them know no party but the church to which they belong, or rather no party but the friends of truth,-that party which, while it will yield its own conscientious convictions to none, will show charity towards all. It is dangerous to imbibe the spirit of any party. There is no act of persecution, injustice, or cruelty, however enormous, which the esprit de corps, if made a rule of conduct, or allowed to govern our actions, may not lead us to sanction. This spirit should have no place where truth and justice are concerned. What led the Jewish priesthood unanimously to condemn our Lord and his apostles, but this cursed blinding spirit of party? The clergy ought especially to be on their guard against this spirit, as they, from their corporate connexion with each other, as members of an order, are most liable to its insidious operations.

"It may seem to some that we have disregarded our own advice in the strictures we have made upon the spirit and principles of the High Church party. But while we condemn these principles as in a great degree popish in their tendency, and their spirit as worldly, and have no confidence in the party as a party, we are far from condemning all who hold those principles. Indeed, we have much more respect for some who pass under the denomination of High Churchmen than we have for many who pass muster as evangelical, while they profess none of the true evangelical spirit. We fully believe, we are thoroughly convinced from our own knowledge, that there are not a few called High Churchmen, who are much better than their party,-men whose principles are evangelical, and whose spirit is Christian, notwithstanding their name,-men who are quietly labouring in their several parishes to do their duty faithfully to the full extent of their knowledge, and have no conscious tendency to Popery,―men who have become classed among High Churchmen from family or local connexions, but who, if they had been thrown into a different position, and knew what Low Churchmen really are, would not be ashamed to be ranked with that dishonoured class. It is such men as these men of candour and real piety, whom we specially address. We call upon them to unite with their so-called Low Church, and yet true Church brethren, in the defence of the Church in this time of her peril from false brethren, and not to be afraid to come openly forward in this truly brotherly way, in a common and a just cause, lest they should thereby become stigmatized with an opprobrious name. We have given evidence in this work, that neither Low Churchmen nor their principles are such as they are often represented to be; and, on the other hand, that what are usually understood to be High Church principles have not that decisive support, even in the wording of the formularies of our Church, which some would assert. In one sense there must ever be such a thing as party, and that thing right. As long as there are truth and error in the world-nominal and real christianity in the Church-so long there must be two parties: and it is for every