4thly. That the faithful departed ought to be recommended in the eucharistic commemoration.

The advocates of these usages have appealed,

1st. To Scripture interpreted by early fathers;

2dly. To universal tradition; for the proof of their assertions.

Their opponents, on the other hand, who deny the essentiality of these things, have endeavoured to wrest the holy Scriptures from them, and draw those sacred records to their own party; and then argue, that tradition without Scripture is not of authority enough to establish a doctrine, or found a necessary practice upon and likewise, that the tradition pleaded for these usages, is not so full and unexceptionable as it is pretended to be.-Pp. iii. vi.

The line of argument adopted, and the way in which the writers think themselves fully justified by the Church of England herself, in the restoration of these rites, will be easily apparent, by their appeal to the following quotation from the Book of Homilies, which they have conspicuously prefixed on the title-page :

BUT BEFORE ALL THINGS, THIS WE MUST BE SURE OF ESPECIALLY, that this Supper be in such wise done and ministered, as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded to be done, as his holy apostles used it, and THE GOOD FATHERS IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH FREQUENTED IT.-Church of England's Homily concerning the Sacrament, Part I.

The Liturgies, and other important documents in this Collection, will be seen by the Table of Contents, which we here subjoin.

12.

1. The Clementine Liturgy. 2. St. James's Liturgy. 3. St Mark's Liturgy. 4. St. Chrysostom's Liturgy. 5. The Liturgy of St. Basil, as used at Constantinople. 6. The Liturgy of St. Basil, as used at Alexandria. 7. The Liturgy of the Church of Ethiopia. 8. Nestorius's Liturgy. 9. The Liturgy of Severus, Patriarch of the Monophysites at Antioch. 10. Fragments of the Gothic or Gothico-Gallican Missal. 11. Fragments of the ancient Gallican Missal. Fragments of the Mosarabic Missal. 13. The Roman Missal, commonly called the Mass. 13. The Communion Office, according to the Liturgy of King Edward VI. 15. The New Communion Office. 16. St. Justin Martyr's account of the manner of celebrating the eucharist in his days. 17. The Fifth Mystagogical Catechism of St. Syril of Jerusalem concerning the eucharist.

Taking the Clementine Liturgy, or, in other words, that which is found in the Apostolical Constitutions, as the standard of the primitive Liturgy, the author of the Dissertation proceeds to test the other remaining documents by this, and with great success points out, from this comparison, the various additions and corruptions which have, from time to time, crept into the others; and thence shows the rise of the various corruptions of catholic truth, in all the ancient churches, and more especially the Romish. We do not, however, dwell on this part, because the subject has been so recently before the public, in the writings of Mr. Palmer, and especially in his invaluable work, the Origines Liturgica; in which latter, also, the young theological student will find an ample investigation into the validity of the present Communion Office, in the Book of Common Prayer, which is decided in the affirmative, although the writer admits the desirableness of the restoration of the peculiar rites contended for by "the learned Dr. Brett."

The Dissertation treats very fully of the ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, which is commonly called, after the name of St. James, "the Lord's brother," as being believed to be framed after the traditional Liturgy of the church over which he had presided.

The writer says

That this traditional Liturgy was the same in substance with the Liturgy of St. James, that has been transmitted to us in writing, (excepting where this Liturgy has been interpolated, of which interpolations I shall quickly take notice) is manifest from St. Cyril's Mystagogical Catechisms here published, wherein he sets forth the manner of celebrating the eucharist according to the form of this Liturgy, as divers learned men have observed. Which traditional Liturgy we have no reason to question was delivered by St. James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, to his presbyters in that church, and from thence transmitted to the succeeding bishops and presbyters, till about the latter end of the fourth, or beginning of the fifth century, it was put into writing, as the liturgies of other churches then also began to be: and therefore, though St. James did not write it, nevertheless it may very reasonably bear his name, the main of it being delivered by him. And as Cardinal Bona says, "Let us freely grant that some things are added by later hands, as is common in like cases; are therefore all to be rejected as spurious, even those things that are genuine? Is not the Pentateuch to be ascribed to Moses, because at the end of the book of Deuteronomy, an account of his death and burial is added by another hand? A sensible man would not argue so.'

I shall therefore proceed to observe these additions, which by making the Clementine Liturgy the test and standard, (as Bishop Hicks calls it, and I trust I have proved it to be) may be easily discovered. "And by comparing those with this, the invocations and additions in after times will appear;" as that worthy prelate has judiciously observed. For as he further says, "Among the additions some are good and some are bad: and any man who is conversant in the history of the Councils, may see how and when both the sorts were introduced into the Liturgies of the Church. And we have additions of both kinds in this Liturgy of St. James. Thus in the eucharistical prayer, a little before the recital of the words of institution, the Virgin Mary is called the mother of God which term does not appear to have been generally used by the Church till the time of Nestorius, who denied our Saviour as God and man to be one person, but divided the Godhead and manhood in one Christ into two persons as well as two natures, denying that the Virgin Mary was mother of a person who was God as well as man. For which heresy he was condemned in the third general Council, held at Ephesus in the year 431. Wherein it was decreed, that the Virgin Mary should be called the mother of God; not as supposing her to be in any respect the mother of the Godhead, but implying that the person born of her had the Divine nature united to the human nature immediately as he was conceived in her womb, and was so born of her, God and man in one person; the two natures being so firmly united in that one person, Jesus Christ, as never after to be separated. And therefore the Church from that time forward, called the blessed Virgin the mother of God, to testify that they did not divide the two natures in Jesus Christ into two persons, as Nestorius did. So also in the prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the elements to make them the body and blood of Christ, that Holy Spirit is called Consubstantial and Co-eternal Person with the Father and the Son. Which term Consubstantial was not used with respect to the Holy Ghost, till Macedonius took upon him to deny the Divine nature of that Holy Spirit, and not to place him in the rank of creatures: for which heresy he was condemned in the second general Council of Constantinople in the year 381. Wherein it being proved from Scripture, and the constant tradition of the Church, that the Holy Ghost was a Divine person of the same nature with the Father and

the Son, the term Consubstantial, which denoted him to be of the same nature, was made use of for that purpose; by which word, as applied to the Holy Ghost, the orthodox Christians thought it convenient to distinguish themselves from the Macedonian heretics, as by the same word, with respect to the Son, they had before distinguished themselves from Arians in the first general Council of Nice. And a little after the deacon has said, "Let us bow down our heads unto the Lord," the priest's benediction runs in this form: "The grace and mercy of the Holy, Consubstantial, Uncreated, and Adorable Trinity, be with us all." And a little after he prays, “O Lord our God, the incomprehensible Word of God, of one eternal and inseparable substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost."

These are good additions made after the Council of Nice. For though there be sufficient evidence in the holy Scriptures, and the fathers of the three first centuries, to satisfy us that there are Three Persons and one God, which we call the Holy Trinity, and also that the Son is of the same nature and essence with the Father, yet the words 'Trinity, consubstantial,' or 'of one substance,' are not in the Scripture, neither are they frequently used by the fathers of the three first centuries, nor do they appear to have been used in any divine offices till after the Council of Nice: at which time they were more generally introduced to distinguish the orthodox Christians from the Arians. But then as there are these justifiable additions in this Liturgy, so there are others which are plain corruptions and unjustifiable. Such is the apostrophe to the Virgin Mary in the middle of the prayer for Christ's Church:-"Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb for of thee was born the Saviour of our souls." Which is also so awkwardly interpolated without connexion with what goes before or follows after, that was it in this particular (as it is not) agreeable to all the other Liturgies, one might reasonably think it was not in the original Liturgy, but was added afterwards by some unskilful hand. Also the next words :-"Most holy, immaculate, superlatively blessed, and glorious Lady," which cannot be applied to any mere human person as she was, are a plain interpolation. And what the singers say immediately after: "It is meet that we should truly magnify thee, the ever blessed and immaculate parent and mother of our God, who art of more honour than the cherubim, and incomparably more glorious than the seraphim; thee we extol, who broughtest forth the Divine Word without knowledge of man, and art truly the parent of God. Thou, O Truth of Grace, art the joy of the whole creation, both of angels and men, a temple of holiness, a spiritual paradise, and the glory of virginity; of whom the Deity was incarnate; and our God, whose being is from eternity, was made a child. For thy womb was his throne, the seat of him whom the heavens cannot contain: for thou, O full of grace, art the joy of the universe! glory be to thee." Now these are extravagant praises, too great most of them to be given to a mortal, and are not so full in any other Liturgy. However there is nothing of them in the Clementine Liturgy, which I have showed to be the test and standard by which the rest are to be tried: neither is there any thing like them in the Liturgies of Severus and Nestorius, and consequently they were introduced after the fifth century, in which age Severus lived. But then it is observable, that notwithstanding there are these high praises and encomiums here given to the blessed Virgin, yet there are no prayers made to her; but in the very next words she is plainly prayed for, as well as other departed saints. For the priest immediately says, "Remember, O Lord, the God of spirits and of all flesh, the faithful whom we have now commemorated, make them to rest in the region of the living," &c. As, therefore, the Virgin Mary was particularly commemorated before, she is plainly prayed for here.-Pp. 339–342.

Another corruption, adopted also by the Papists, is that of dipping a piece of bread into the wine, called the union of the two kinds; which even they admit to be an innovation.

For the Canon Missæ, published by the divines of Cologne in their Antididagma, or book which they wrote in answer to the Book of Reformation made by Bucer and Melancthon in that electorate, by the authority of Herman, then archbishop, at the end of the Lord's Prayer, in that edition of the Mass, are these words,-"Here anciently the canon ended, and they called that which follows an interpolation or excrescence." Now the order to dip a piece of the consecrated host into the cup, follows the word here cited, and therefore by their own confession was no part of the ancient canon of the Roman Church. So that it wants antiquity, as being not elder even in the East than the latter end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century, nor in any of the Western churches till many ages after.

Together with this practice of dipping a piece of consecrated bread into the cup, was also introduced another in the Eastern churches of putting the bread and wine both into a spoon, and so administering to the laity. For this also, being the practice both of the Nestorians and Jacobites, appears to have been elder than the middle of the fifth century, and yet it is certainly later than the middle of the fourth century. For St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who delivered his catechetical lectures about the year 350, that is, in the middle of the fourth century, towards the conclusion of his fifth Mystagogical Catechism, which is here published together with the Liturgies, directs those he instructs, that every one of them, "after he has communicated of the body of Christ, should go and partake of the cup of his blood." Which is a certain evidence, that in his time the bread and wine were given distinct, and the people received the wine not together with the bread in a spoon, but having first received the bread in the palm of the right hand, and eaten it as he before directs, they then received the cup also, according to the direction here cited. But though this custom began thus early, so that the Nestorians and Monophysites, as well as the Catholics, came into it, yet it is certain it was but then beginning, and was so far from being authorized, that it was directly condemned by the Church above two hundred years after the Council of Chalcedon. For in the Council of Trullo, in the year 680, those are condemned who do not receive the eucharist in their hands, and those who do not administer it to them to be taken in their hands. The canon according to Mr. Johnson's Translation and Abridgement runs thus: "That men take the eucharist into their own hands, holding them in the form of a cross; that they who bring little vessels of gold, or other metal, and do not receive the eucharist into their own hands, be suspended from communion; as also he that gives them the eucharist in this manner.-Pp. 343, 344.

The following, on the use of incense, is very clear and satisfactory :--

It is certain, there is no mention of it in the three first centuries, if there be in the fourth. Indeed, in the third of those canons which are called Apostolical, which canons make the last chapter of the book called the Apostolical Constitutions, which the learned Bishop Beveridge has proved were canons made in the three first centuries, there is particular mention of the offering incense at the time of the oblation. But to this it may be observed, that though it be generally agreed by the learned, that the book called the Apostolical Constitutions, was compiled by some person or persons before the Council of Nice, and that therein is transmitted to us the best and fullest account of the customs and practices of the Church in those ages which is now extant in any one book of that antiquity, yet it is allowed by all, even by Mr. Whiston himself, (who has advanced that book to an equal authority with the Holy Scriptures) that there are many interpolations and additions which have been made and annexed to it in after-ages. So that where it contains any thing that is not to be corroborated by some contemporary evidence, it can be of no authority. Though where there is contemporary evidence, as I have shown there is for every part of the Communion Office, its authority is valuable.-Pp. 346. 347. He that is curious to know more of this matter, may consult the learned Mr. Dodwell's "Discourse concerning the Use of Incense in Divine Offices :

wherein it is proved that that practice, taken up in the middle ages, both by the Eastern and Western churches, is, notwithstanding, an innovation from the doctrine of the first and purest churches, and the traditions derived from the apostles." And this canon, which admitting it to be as ancient as the third century, and Bishop Beveridge pretends no elder authority for it, is so far from proving it an apostolical tradition, that it proves it directly otherwise. For had it been apostolical, it would not have been παρὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου διάταξιν τὴν ἐπὶ Tevala, otherwise than our Lord ordained concerning the sacrifice. For we cannot suppose that the apostles would offer otherwise or in another manner than the Lord had ordaned. And the very excepting these things, of which incense is one, is a testimony that this was otherwise and in another manner than the Lord had ordained. Besides, though it does appear that incense was used in the middle and latter ages in all churches, and at the altar also, yet it never obtained to be used universally in the Canon Missæ, that is, in the proper immediate communion service, or in that part of the Liturgy which falls under our present consideration; it was not used as any ways tending to make the oblation of the sacramental body and blood of Christ. Neither is it in the Anaphora or Canon Missæ of St. James's Liturgy, which is now under consideration, and therefore I shall say no more of it here.-P. 351.

(To be continued.)

ART. II.-Remains of the late Rev. Charles John Paterson, B.A. Vicar of West Hoathley, Sussex; consisting of a Memoir, with Correspondence, and Sermons. Edited by CHARLES JAMES HOARE, M.A. Archdeacon of Winchester. London: Seeley and Burnside. 1838. Pp. 352.

THIS is, in our opinion, a little volume of considerable merit; it has no pretensions to theological depth; its author indeed, as appears from the brief memoir appended, died young, was actively employed in the pastoral work while a clergyman, and bad not the most favourable dispositions in the outset for attaining professional learning. But his simple piety, his diligence in the study of the best of books, his clear and animated style, his earnestness in the commendation of a doctrine, and his close examination of his text, and comparison with other scriptures, altogether render the volume valuable as a literary production, as an impressive vehicle of gospel truth, and as a model for the study of clergymen whose congregations are neither very rustic, nor very erudite; a fashionable congregation, like that of Laura chapel, where something is wanted that may arrest the thoughtless, yet not displease the fastidious, is the region to which they are exactly adapted. Having said thus much of these sermons, we think it right to state, in limine, that we do not unreservedly approve the doctrine they contain, which is diluted Calvinism-weak, we will allow; but still the presence of that fervid alcohol is traceable in the pure and limpid flow of the "living water" which Mr. Paterson has drawn with no unsuccessful hand from "the wells of salvation." In a sermon on the doctrine of assurance, a subject which