of that general work which the one great High Priest performs in heaven through the intervention of this Heavenly Head, the earthly sacrifices truly exhibit to the FATHER that body of CHRIST, which is the one only sacrifice for sins; each visible act has its efficacy through those invisible acts of which it is the earthly expression; and things done on earth are one with those done in heaven. (p. 377.) Hence too is involved the necessity of the Christian Priesthood, the earthly sacrificers of this unbloody offering, and which no more interferes with the common Priesthood of Christians, than does the office of king with their kingly character.

It is the same doctrine which gives reality to the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. As the Holy Communion, according to Bishop Jeremy Taylor, is the extension of the Incarnation, Holy Baptism is that which unites us to the manhood of CHRIST. It is an actual incorporation with Him through His Church, the putting on of CHRIST.

To deny the Sacramental system, in other words to deny the objective teaching of the Church is tantamount to a denial of the Incarnation of CHRIST, that great mystery of Godliness, which whoever denies is declared to be Antichrist. A truth this which is confirmed by the expressed opinion of those who have undervalued or denied this system. Tillotson and Hoadley in former times are sad instances of this truth, but perhaps the saddest instance of all is Archbishop Whateley, who in his Theological Idiosyncracies, uses the very terms condemned by the Church in Sabellius. This is the fatal blot upon all the Archbishop's writings, his logic as well as his theological works have the same heretical tendency; we say tendency because we would fain hope with Archdeacon Wilberforce that the probity and public spirit, as well as the high station of the Archbishop, are a sufficient guarantee that it is not from any intentional rejection of the authorized declarations of the Church. (p. 348.) Still after all the connection between a low view of the Sacramental system and a tendency to the Sabellian heresy is most significant.

And yet perhaps it is from this fact, sad as it is, that we may hope for a return to the teaching of orthodoxal antiquity, to use an often repeated phrase of Dr. Jackson, who is not less a favourite with ourselves than with our author, although we cannot but regret his coarse way of handling the Romish controversy, which renders the greater part of his writings almost unreadable in this age. Could earnest minded men be convinced that in whatever degree they deny or undervalue the authority of the Church, the blessed Sacraments, and the Divine commission of those who offer them, in the same degree they are derogating from the Great Mystery of Godliness-the ground of all our hopes of pardon and renovation, the great objective fact of Christianity, they would doubtless shrink with horror from opinions of such fearful tendency.

Equally essential also is it for Rationalists of another kind who expect the world's regeneration from intellect, civilisation, and the progress of human society, to remember that CHRIST as the Mediator, is the only source of holiness and knowledge, and that intellect and civilisation are in themselves utterly unable to produce the glory or happiness of mankind.

And while we commend these reflections to either of the former classes of individuals, we would suggest to others who profess to believe in this cardinal fact of Christianity, to consider how far they do not practically deny it in their actions. Can, for instance, a disregard, if not profanation, of the holy seasons of the Christian year which revolves round our LORD's Incarnation, as its centre, coexist with the heart-felt belief of that doctrine? And so of the neglect of common worship, and the infrequency of the Holy Communion, the want of which unchristianises the LORD's Day, and degrades it to the Judaical Sabbath. Then again, Quarter Sessions, in the Holy Week, and Lent Assizes, are witnesses to the same spirit, and a renunciation of a public homage to our LORD'S humanity.

Here then we take leave of this deeply interesting and most instructive volume-a valuable addition to our somewhat meagre stock of dogmatic theology, and at the same time a noble testimony to the author's learning and orthodoxy; and, we would add, earnest and reverential piety. It is indeed cheering in these dreary days to find one, who as he himself reminds us has an hereditary attachment to evangelical doctrine, come to the rescue of principles which are falsely supposed to be incompatible with the purity of Gospel truth. And while some have gone beyond the teaching of the English Church, and others have sunk sadly below it—and not a few who once lifted up their voices for unpopular truths, are openly disowning them-it is cheering, we say, under such downheartening circumstances to see a divine of Archdeacon Wilberforce's station and character come forward as a devoted son of the Church of England, in a thoughtful and uncontroversial spirit to elucidate with all the grace and strength of a refined and logical diction, and with learning most profound and varied, a doctrine which is most necessary for these times. For as he himself observes,

Such an inquiry, unless the writer is mistaken, will suit the wants of the present day. Religion being a divine reality, implies the existence of certain outward facts, external to ourselves, which have a being independent of our thoughts, and are the objects of our consideration. Neither can it flourish, unless the subjective action of our thoughts be maintained by the presence of such objective realities. For example, we are justified by faith in CHRIST. Now, as faith is a process in our own minds, to discriminate between a true or living faith, so a dead or feigned one, is to inquire into the subjective part of the doctrine of jus

tification-into the part, that is, which belongs to us, who are the subject matter of its operation. But then, our faith must have an object to rest upon-the oblation of CHRIST upon the Cross once for all; and unless this event had truly happened, unless this great deed, external to ourselves, had an actual place in the world of realities, our inward feelings would be only a delusive dream.

"When the minds of men are roused from any protracted apathy, their first inquiries will, of course, be of the subjective character, because they will begin by taking a survey of their own state, before they pass into the world around. And this accounts for the subjective tone which marked the great reaction of the sixteenth century, as well as for the predominance of the same temper in the last generation. In the last age, the first object required was to provoke men to a seriousness which was too often wanting, and thus to call them to an examination of their own hearts. But it is time that the subjective revival of the last age, should assume also an objective character. If this be neglected, it will gradually die out, like so many other religious revivals: and the real earnestness which dictated its growth, will evaporate in a system of empty phrases and party watchwords. And the sure consequence, if men fancy themselves deluded by a phraseology, which has no counterpart in the external world, will be the growth of open or covert infidelity. Such has been the result arrived at by a popular writer, who tells us, that all genuine faith is-other circumstances being the same -of about equal value. The value is in the act of faith, more than in the object. And though admitting that it is of very high importance that the objects of faith should be the loftiest and the purest that in any particular age can be attained,' the authoress cited appears to consider all religions upon a par as regards their abstract truth, and observes, that men afflict themselves needlessly about one another's safety as regards points of spiritual belief.' This were doubtless true, if man's life resembled a mere soliloquy, in which the purpose was to give vent only to the feelings of his own mind. But if we be truly surrounded by a world of unseen beings, if we have actually 'come unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living GOD, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of Angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to GOD the JUDGE OF ALL, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to JESUS the MEDIATOR of the new covenant,' then, surely, it cannot be immaterial whether we rightly apprehend those mighty realities which press upon us so nearly, and whether our acts and language are fitted for that hallowed intercourse to which we have been admitted. Otherwise, we are intruding, like unconscious dreamers, into the sacred presence of the Great King. Hence the desire of the present writer, as being bound by education and hereditary attachment to those evangelical principles in which he was nurtured, to call attention to the external truths, on which the doctrines of grace are dependent. For it is no system of idle words which is made known by the Holy Apostles, 'concerning JESUS CHRIST Our LORD, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power.'"-pp. 5-8.

90

THE LITURGY OF S. JAMES.

The Greek Liturgy of S. James, Edited with an English Introduction and Notes. By the Rev. W. TROLLOPE. Clarks: Edinburgh.

1848.

ON more accounts than one this is a very remarkable book. The very name of its publishers makes it so. It appears as a companion volume to Clark's Foreign Theological Library. Probably some works of these series have fallen into the hands of most of our readers. The best specimens of modern German Theology are to be found among them; though to a Catholic mind they are all, perhaps, more or less rationalistic in their tone. Their general character cannot better be described than by the one word-critical. They contain meat suited to the tastes of those among us who are looking to find a substitute for Church authority in a school of sound criticism. May we not however look upon this liturgical publication as some indication, that divines, even of this school, are willing to learn something of Christian doctrine and practice from the Ancient Monuments of Primitive worship? And when we remember how much of men's opposition to Catholic truth arises from sheer ignorance of the testimony which all antiquity bears to itwe hail very hopefully a publication which honestly sets this testimony forward as a matter of fact. And besides, liturgical studies are to a critical mind one of the best introductions to the study of dogmatic theology, and no mean help towards a proper appreciation of its value, or one would rather say, necessity.

This edition of the Liturgy of S. James is the more welcome, as it comes to us from an unexpected quarter. But this is by no means the only claim which it has upon our attention. To say that Mr. Trollope, in his Introduction and Notes, writes learnedly, candidly, dispassionately, is to ascribe to him the virtues of a mere critical divine; but we are persuaded that he is more. Besides being a good critic, he has evidently a sincere love for those venerable monuments of the Early Church for their own sakes, and a deep reverence for the voice of Catholic antiquity. His statements of doctrine are, in the main, high and consistent. He is not afraid to admit that the Early Church held doctrines, which people now call Romish.

He has, it is true, brought forward little or nothing in the way of original views, but following in the track of previous writers he has produced a work which every beginner in liturgical studies will find a most useful help. And, indeed, in dealing with his book, it is our object not so much to sit in judgment upon it, and to point out its mistakes, as to draw from it some information on

its general subject, which, though already well-known to the learned, may not be uninstructive to most of our readers.

As a suitable introduction to the whole subject, we will give some account in Mr. Trollope's own words, of one of the first principles of his science, the Apostolical origin, at least in substance, of the ancient liturgies:

"From a comparison of the various primitive Liturgies with each other, all of them appear to have been derived from four independent forms, which have been in use, from a period of the most remote antiquity, in the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, and the dependencies of the Roman and Gallican churches respectively. Now in all these several forms, notwithstanding the manifold interpolations and corruptions introduced in after times, and the liberty which every church individually possessed of ordaining and revising its services, there is an agreement so plain and positive, that, while it clearly indicates a common original, can scarcely be explained otherwise than by referring that original to the Apostles themselves. Nothing short of the reverence, due to the authority of an Apostle, could have preserved intact through successive ages, that strict uniformity of rite, and striking identity of sentiment, which pervade these venerable compositions; but there is at the same time a sufficient diversity, both of expression and arrangement, to mark them as the production of different authors- each writing without any immediate communication with the other; but all influenced by the same prevailing motives of action, and the same constant habit of thought. Each of them seems to have been designed upon the model prescribed by S. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy :* and the supposition is far from improbable, that they were originally drawn up by the Apostles, S. James, S. Mark, S. Peter, and S. John, for the use of those churches which they respectively planted. Not, indeed, that there is any positive authority for ascribing the authorship to these Apostles, for it should rather appear that the prevailing custom of writers in the early ages to procure attention to their works, by inscribing them with the names of the Apostles or their immediate friends and followers is manifestly against it. Thus the Liturgy of the Apostolical Constitutions was fathered upon Clement, the fellow labourer of S. Paul; and there are Liturgies extant under the Sacred Name of the SAVIOUR Himself, and that of the Virgin Mary. It is highly probable that in this there was no intentional deceit, but that an honorary dedication, rather than a pious fraud, may have been designed; and the same may be the case with the particular Liturgies under consideration. While it is certain, however, that under any circumstance these four forms have been materially corrupted by the interpolations and changes of later ages, it is also easy to conceive, that the genuine texts, if they could be recovered, might lay legitimate claim to Apostolic origin."— pp. 12-14.

Mr. Trollope supports this opinion by the judgment of the great Roman Ritualists, Renaudot, Muratori, Bona, and Zaccaria, whom

1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.