Let me in conclusion do this writer an act of justice, (for which he will not perhaps altogether thank me,) even while with shame and sorrow I now dismiss his Essay. Unpardonable as he is for having written thus; and _wholly_ without excuse for having suffered _nine editions_ of his blasphemous allegory to go forth to the world without apology, explanation, or retractation of any kind,--although he labours under a weight of competent censure without a parallel, I believe, in the annals of the English Church[50]: notwithstanding all this, I am bound to say that if the unbelievers of this generation think they have an ally in _the man_, Frederick Temple,--they are very much mistaken. That so pure a heart, and earnest a spirit, will never work itself free of its present bondage,--I should be sorry indeed to think. (But O the mischief which the head-master of Rugby School will have done in the meantime!) His misfortune (or rather fault) it has been, that he has really never studied Divinity; nor, in fact, _knows anything at all about it_,--as a volume of his, lately published, sufficiently shews. Apart from his opinions (!), he is a thoroughly amiable man; and--(with the same proviso!)--an excellent schoolmaster; but when he ventures upon the province of Theology, he shews himself something infinitely worse than _a very bad Divine_. * * * * * II. On turning the first page of the review which follows, "by ROWLAND WILLIAMS, D.D. Vice-Principal and Professor of Hebrew, St. David's College, Lampeter; Vicar of Broad Chalke, Wilts,"--we are made sensible that we are in company of a writer considerably in advance of Dr. Temple, though altogether of the same school. In fact, if Dr. Williams had not been Vice-Principal of a Theological College, and a Doctor of Divinity, one would have supposed him to be a complete infidel,--who found it convenient to vent his own unbelief in a highly laudatory review of the principles of the late Baron Bunsen. Hear him:--"When Bunsen asks 'How long shall we bear this fiction of an external Revelation,'--that is, of one violating the heart and conscience, instead of expressing itself through them;--or when he says, 'All this is delusion for those who believe it; but what is it in the mouths of those who teach it?'--Or when he exclaims, 'Oh the fools! who, if they do see the imminent perils of this age, think to ward them off by narrow-minded persecution'!--and when he repeats, 'Is it not time, in truth, to withdraw the veil from our misery? to tear off the mask from hypocrisy, and destroy that sham which is undermining all real ground under our feet? to point out the dangers which surround, nay, threaten already to engulf us?'--there will be some who think his language too vehement for good taste. Others will think burning words needed by the disease of our time. These will not quarrel on points of taste with a man who in our darkest perplexity has reared again the banner of Truth,