the conversion of all Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics:' and whether one or two collects more added, of the same kind, would not sufficiently accommodate the service of that day to this use? And farther, whether if a public collection were to be made in all churches, especially in the churches of these two great cities, (London and Westminster,) on that day, for the promoting of this work, it would not be both a very proper and a very great help and encouragement to it ?"* In consequence of this suggestion, the Society, at a meeting held on the 19th Dec. 1710, agreed, "that an humble address be made to her Majesty, representing the condition of the Society, and praying that she would be pleased to issue her royal proclamation, or her letter, for a collection to be made in churches and chapels on Good Friday, and in other places of public worship on the Sunday following, in the cities of London and Westminster, and bills of mortality, for promoting the designs of the Society."+ A memorial was accordingly presented to the Queen by the Archbishop of York, to which her Majesty was graciously pleased to answer, that "she thought not fit to direct a general collection to be made on Good Friday, because she was informed it had been customary to make charitable collections for other uses on that day, but that it was her royal intention to grant the request of the Society at a more proper opportunity."§ Trinity Sunday was the day ultimately fixed; and a royal letter accordingly was addressed to the Bishops of London and Winchester, for a collection within the limits above specified. The returns under this first royal letter amounted to the sum of 30607. Three years afterwards, a similar application, with, however, a more comprehensive prayer, was presented to her Majesty on behalf of the Society, and she was again pleased to return a favourable answer, and address her royal letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Durham, Winchester, Exeter, Rochester, Bristol, and Chester, ordering collections to be made in the cities of London and Westminster, with the borough of Southwark, on Trinity Sunday, (9 May, 1713,) and in the cities of Exeter and Bristol, with the seaport towns of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Plymouth, Bideford, Barnstaple, Whitehaven, and Liverpool, on the 11th July following. "These royal letters," says the Report of the Society, for 1714, were attended with so good success, by the blessing of God on the fitting care and importunity of the clergy, and others, in collecting the munificent charities of a willing people," that they brought into the treasury of the Society no less an amount than 38871. In 1717, a third collection, under authority of letters from King George I., was made in the cities of London and Westminster, and within a circuit of ten miles, as also in "the principal towns trading to the plantations in America," the same as already mentioned on a former occasion. The day appointed for making the collection was the third Sunday in Advent. The amount raised was 37271. * Printed Report, 1709. † Journal, vol. i. § Journal, ii. p. 27. p. 328. Dr. Sharp. No other general collection was made until 1741, in which year the Society having far exceeded its income, addressed King George II., in a memorial, stating that it "had distributed more than one hundred thousand copies of the Bible, Common Prayer, and other religious books, and that God had so far blessed its endeavours that not only some thousands of Indians and negroes had been instructed and baptized by the missionaries, but likewise by their means and procurement many churches had been built in several parts of America, where at present, in populous congregations, the Word of God is taught, and the sacraments administered according to the Liturgy of the Church of England," and on these grounds praying his Majesty to issue his royal letter for a general collection of charity throughout England and Wales, for the good uses of this Society. The petition was granted, and the letter addressed, through the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, to the several suffragans in the two provinces.* This, which was the first collection directed to be made throughout the whole country, produced, of course, considerably more than any of the preceding ones; but it is not distinguished in the Report of that year from the Society's general receipts, and cannot, therefore, be accurately stated. The next letter was issued, in 1751, by King George II., who himself set the example of a liberal contribution by a donation of 500%. The proceeds of this letter were 16,8947. No royal letter after this was granted till 1779, when George III., in the midst of the American war of independence, authorized a general collection, and contributed from the privy purse a sum of 5007. total receipts on this occasion were 19,3237. The This was the last royal letter in aid of the Society during that century. Those which remain to be enumerated have all been issued in quite recent times. That of 1819 (Feb. 10) was in aid of a special object of very considerable importance-the erection of a mission college at Calcutta. It produced 45,7471. The dates and amount of collections from royal letters since issued are as follows: The decrease in the returns of 1841 as compared with those of 1838 may probably be attributed to the great commercial distress which was prevalent during that and the subsequent year-a distress which not only directly affected the amount of contribution, but led to the issuing of a Queen's letter during the same year, specially for the relief of the unemployed manufacturers. The Queen's letter, now in course of being read in the several churches and chapels of England and Wales, was not issued till late in the year 1844. Printed Report, 1742. Comparatively few returns have yet been made; but it is confidently hoped that, as the sphere of the Society's operations and the number of its missionaries is larger than at any former period, so, also, the amount of the collection now in progress will be proportionately increased. E. H. NOTICES AND REVIEWS. The Churchman's Theological Dictionary. By the Rev. Robert Eden, M.A., F.S.A., late Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford; and Minister of St. Mary's Chapel, Lambeth. London: Parker. 12mo. pp. 400. Few works are more wanted than a Theological Dictionary, to answer the thousand questions which occur in general reading, and to which no one book of reference affords a brief and satisfactory solution. Unhappily, the want is far, indeed, from being supplied by the present volume. Whether Mr. Eden was competent to execute such a work, must have appeared rather more than questionable to those who know anything of the mode in which Philpot's Remains were edited for the Parker Society, and, without having read through the whole of the present volume, (which, considering it is a dictionary, could scarcely have been attempted,) enough has been noticed to make one regret that he should have been so ill-advised as to undertake it. One example may suffice. "HOMEOUSIAN. A term describing the opinions of Arius and his fellowheretics, who declared the Son of God to be only of like substance (òμolovσios) with the Father."-p. 181. How any one so ignorant of the opinions of Arius could attempt to write a theological dictionary is truly surprising.* But it is not merely on account of his incompetency that it is to be lamented Mr. Eden undertook to compile this dictionary. In the preface Mr. Eden states that he "repudiates as disingenuous," "the artifice, which unhappily is no uncommon one, of insinuating opinions of things under the guise of an explanation of the meaning of words." After such a statement one would be sorry to accuse Mr. Eden of artifice;" nor does it seem fair to be too ready, without some very direct proof of disingenuousness, to attribute to artifice the conveying (for "insinuation" implies artifice) of the author's peculiar opinions, even through the explanations of words. But, after such a disclaimer as this, one cannot but feel surprised "The Learned * No attempt is made in this notice to point out minor blunders. Martone," (p. 3,) may be a printer's fault. "Vincent of Lyra," (p. 388,) is rather more unquestionable; and reminds any one who has happened to read that absurd book of the "Vincent of Lirius," that Dr. Hookwell is so fond of talking about to young ladies and gentlemen. One is sorry to notice "Vincentius of Lirius" in Mr. Maskell's Ancient English Liturgy also.-p. xxxi. to find every possible opportunity taken in this dictionary for advocating peculiar views of various sorts, and, unhappily, among the rest, most unscriptural notions concerning the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. The views industriously put forward in various parts of the volume are those which currently pass under the name of Sabellianism. How far they exactly quadrate with the precise notions taught by Sabellius is a matter of little moment. What is of real importance is, that they are contrary to the doctrine of Holy Scripture and the church of England. According to Mr. Eden, the Scriptures describe God as "manifested (the italics are Mr. Eden's) in a threefold relation to man," (p. 168.) The Trinity, in his view, seems to be nothing more than "God's threefold manifestation of himself," (p. 368.) And "all the different representations which our Lord gives of himself (I and the Father are one, &c.)" lead "to the belief of God's being revealed to us in three characters, as standing in three relations to us," (pp. 368, 369.) Thus, also, he gives as the opposite to the doctrine of the Arians "The word Father' imports merely the mysterious and ineffable relation which the first person in the Godhead bears to the second, (see Heb. i. 2.) So that, by this term, when contrasted with the Son,' (as it almost always is by our Lord himself) appears generally to be meant the unrevealed God.' In this view, the declaration that the Father' is greater than the Son,' (John, xiv. 28,) implies no personal superiority, but means only that the portion of the divine dispensations which is not disclosed, is greater than what was revealed in Jesus."-p. 151. To which daring gloss on the words of Christ Mr. Eden adds, but on what ground he has not stated, 6 "Such is the belief of the church of England; as expressed in the Proper Preface,' for the Feast of Trinity,' in the Communion Service; also in the Athanasian Creed."-p. 151. It certainly does carry too much of the appearance of artifice, to represent the alternative as lying between such a monstrous view as this and Arianism. The merest student in theology could have told Mr. Eden that it was not in this way the Christian church met the heresy of Arius; and if he had consulted the Athanasian Creed, to which he refers his readers, he would have found there also another explanation. But in this way it is that Mr. Eden drives his uninformed reader into the dilemma of taking up with one or other of two opinions, both equally false. In the explanation of the word "Sabellians," he adopts language so similar to that which would be used by a writer who was conscious that his opinions were irreconcilable with the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, as to create a still more painful feeling in the mind. "Those (he says) who have a leaning towards the Tritheistic views sometimes forget the warning, that for every idle word they shall give account, so far as to brand those who differ from them with the reproach of Sabellianism,"-language which must leave a painful impression on any one acquainted with the artifices resorted to in the Sabellian controversy. This is not the place to discuss the truth of Mr. Eden's notions ; the object being merely to discharge the duty of pointing out their erroneous character, and the mischievous tendency of his book. But, lest any one should be in danger of being led astray by this dictionary, it may be proper to make one observation. Mr. Eden is more than once compelled to admit that, were it not for the "sedulous care" which he states is taken in scripture to assure us of "the numerical unity" of God," the whole history recorded, and the views everywhere taken in Scripture," "the tone of Scripture," are such as not "only would present to our minds nothing inconsistent with the agency of three Divine Beings acting in concert;" but might "naturally lead the reader either to believe in three Gods, or, at least, to be in doubt on the question," (pp. 368-380.) Now, if Mr. Eden will take the trouble to reckon up the number of times where any assertion of the unity of the divine nature is made, except for the purpose of guarding against polytheistic idolatry, he will probably be led to think that less of sedulous care has been taken in Scripture to guard against tritheism than he now supposes. And coupling this observation with his own statement regarding the "tone of Scripture," "the whole history recorded, and the views everywhere taken," surely it must be self-evident that, if the views Mr. Eden takes of the Trinity-in other words, if what is popularly called Sabellianism be true, the Bible is itself a greater mystery than any it professes to reveal. For it is a book avowedly written for the poor and the uneducated-for those to whom such theories as the Sabellian, and such modes of explaining away its plain language, must be wholly incomprehensible. According to Mr. Eden's own shewing, Sabellianism is so far from the "tone of Scripture," that, if it were not for the declarations (it is to be hoped Mr. Eden will ascertain how many such declarations the Bible really contains) in assertion of the divine unity as opposed to tritheism, no one could draw any other doctrine but tritheism from the Bible. The natural impression made by the whole sacred volume is this-that there are three distinct persons co-existent at one and the same time; and the natural result of the belief of the Scriptures would be tritheism, if that error were not guarded against. No one living ever yet gathered out of the Bible, or ever could, the notion that the persons of the Godhead are no more than three manifestations in different dispensations or times, or their natures merely the expression of God's different relations to us. The idea of interpreting the language by which Christ declares his inferiority to the Father, as if it meant "only that the portion of the divine dispensations which is not disclosed is greater than what was revealed in Jesus," is one that never did or could occur to any human being, except some one who was endeavouring to make such language square with Sabellianism. It is in fact and palpably an application, and a very gross one, of the non-natural system of interpretation to the language and teaching of both the Bible and the formularies of the church, regarding the doctrine of the blessed Trinity; and, as such, it is impossible to speak of it in too strong terms of reprobation. What sort of notion has Mr. Eden of inspiration? He evidently believes what is called Sabellianism to be the true doctrine of the Trinity; and yet he ac |