preserve, as more appropriate also, the posture of kneeling rather than sitting or reclining. But, after all, our Lord's example in this instance shows us how slight in His eye was the revival of outward appointments, whether more or less appropriate.

The other instance referred to must end a paper already too long, but for the illustration of which hundreds of other points present themselves. In a book on church architecture, which concludes with a most ridiculous, if not suspicious looking Calendar, we find there is one point as to the arrangement of seats which is imperative. There must be a void space up the centre of the nave, not less than four feet wide. The reason given why this must be, is the appearance of it. Possibly there are other reasons which may weigh more with Mr. Barr than others of us. On this point, at any rate, the question can be met. The effect gained by leaving the aisles, from pillar to wall, open as approaches, with their ancient sedilia and sepulchral effigies or niches unobstructed, would more than counterbalance any loss of beauty (if there be any) in filling up the centre allée with such lowbacked seats as most of us nowadays would prefer. Mr. Barr, however, illustrates his position by a view of an interior in Oxfordshire. On reference to it we see, that, owing to this fancy of a central avenue, the beautiful pillars of the fine old church stand in the middle of the fine old pews, like a regiment of men wading over a broad river up to their shoulders in water. The pillars spoil the pewing, and the pewing the pillars, and both together the proportions of the whole building, which would be appreciated at once, if but a single pair of pillars were visible from base to capital. Such is the strange feeling of beauty which sees it in mere Antiquity; and such was the spirit which disfigured our noble early churches with roodlofts and ladders to get up to them for the illumination on the garlanding of a worshipped Cross.

THE SABBATH.

"Wherefore, the Lord blessed the seventh day."

LET nought my peace of mind molest
The Day, the Lord of Glory blest;
But, be each sacred musing giv'n
To Him, who made not REST for Heav'n
Alone-but for primeval Earth ;
And man, redeemed to second birth.
O glorious aim! O wondrous plan!
God reconciled to sinful man!

How little is there HERE to prize!
How little is there HERE to learn!
All that the Schools account most wise,
Is but as dust in folly's urn.

Let Faith, that teaches how to DIE,
Her pure theodicy impart ;
The only knowledge 'neath the sky
That can avail to mend the heart.

Hark! to the Sabbath-breathing bell,
From spire revered-from holy tow'r;
Whose echoes, in sequester'd dell,
Now harmonise the solemn hour!

See! pious Christians, hand-in-hand,
With Sabbath-garb and Sabbath-smiles,
The rich-the poor, ONE social band,
Throng to the consecrated aisles!

It is the Sabbath. O my soul !

Own its divine and potent sway,

Let it each sinful thought control;

For thee-for thee, was BLEST this day!

E. T.

III. MISCELLANEOUS LITERATURE.

I. MODERN CONTROVERSY.

Enchiridion Theologicum Anti-Romanum. Tracts on the Points at Issue between the Churches of England and Rome. 3 vols. 8vo. Oxford.

THE contents of the treatises which are comprised in these volumes are such as should, we conceive, recommend them to the attention of the members of the Church of England. And now that the Bishop of Lincoln, among other prelates, has indicated his sense of the merits of that controversy which brought them into being and well does it deserve his Lordship's selection-we shall not be stepping out of our province, we trust, in directing the clerical readers of this Magazine to so valuable a storehouse of fact and argument, here reprinted at the University Press, in Oxford. The "Dissuasives" of Bishop Taylor, Dr. Barrow's "Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome," and a collection of smaller treatises on the doctrines peculiarly distinguishing the Church of Rome from the Church of England, and indeed all other churches, will provide such as are willing to pay the requisite attention to the important subjects contained in their volumes with excellent argument and well

grounded statement of fact. It should be recollected there is no sectarian object maintained, or sought to be attained, in promoting an enquiry into the doctrines and practices of the Tridentine Church. In supporting our own Church against the machinations of Rome, we are supporting the cause of all other churches also, however they may happen to differ from us in their ecclesiastical platforms. It is a common cause which is advocated in the volumes now brought under the view of our readers; and the quality of their contents is such as to merit their acquisition, attention, and perusal. To Bishop Taylor's "Dissuasive" is subjoined his "Treatise on the Real Presence," which may be perused with, of course, much greater pleasure and satisfaction than many a treatise of us "moderns;" and to each volume is prefixed a brief notice of the writers whose works are reprinted. Those in the third volume are by Bishop Burnet, Dr. Claggett, Archbishop Wake, Drs. Stanley and Payne, and last, not least, Bishop Stillingfleet.

Dr. Pusey and the Fathers; or, A Comparison of the Doctrine in the Sermon of the Former with Writers of the First Five Centuries. By the Rev. T. W. MELLER, M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge. London: J. Hatchard and Son, Piccadilly. 1843.

Mr. Meller, in this excellent pamphlet, treats the circumstances connected with Dr. Pusey's sermon on the Eucharist as a crisis in the history of the Tractarian movement. He rightly contends that the fathers of the first five centuries do themselves furnish a reply to the Catena, from them set forth by the heresiarch. The form of expression, "the Eucharist imparteth," is objectionable, though the blessings assumed as connected with the sacred rite are readily granted. Speaking of the manner in which our Lord noticed the difficulties against his teaching (John vi. 52), Dr. Pusey remarks—

"He answers not the strivings of the Jews, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? Such an 'How can these things be?' He never answereth; and we, if we be wise, shall never ask how they can be elements of this world, and yet His very body and blood. But how they give life to us, He does answer."

"Now," says Mr. Meller, "with all due deference to the logical clearness of the learned doctor, it appears to us that his reasoning here is against himself—quite as much in favour of the agitation of the subject, according to the Romish method, as of that proposed by Dr. Pusey. It is supposed that two questions might be started as difficulties against the declaration of Jesus, that in the bread of a sacred rite to be afterwards instituted he would give his flesh to be eaten. The Romanist urges the enquiry, how bread can be his body, and invents in reply the figment of a change in the substance: Dr. Pusey thinks such a question unwise, and prefers to ask, how bread and wine can give life to us, that life being the spiritual blessing imparted by the flesh and blood of the Lord? The distinction which the author would make between himself and the less wise Papist is just the difference between the questions, How can bread be the body of the Lord? and, How can bread do that which the body of the Lord is to do? and though the former of these is guarded by the prohibition of its being unwise, we cannot but remark how the enquiry moved by Dr. Pusey does, on his own principles, lead the mind to the very verge of the Papist's argument. If there be some distinction between the two, the sentiments contained in this sermon go far to annul that distinction, and to fill up the interval which might be viewed as the separating difference: for, if the truth allow of our doing so, how shall the latter question be better met than by the very statement which naturally prompts the former query? How can bread do that which the body of the Lord is to do?-The objection here urged is at once answered, if we may say in reply that bread becomes the body of the Lord, and the difficulty then assumes the very form of which the Papist makes so advantageous a use. But that such is the reply which Dr. Pusey holds to be in accordance with truth, we are warranted in asserting, not indeed from the immediate context of the passage last quoted, for then, indeed, the distinction professed between himself and the advocate of transubstantiation would be at once too evidently lost; but in page v. of the preface this doctrine is

avowed in express terms: I could not but speak of the consecrated elements, as being what, since He has so called them, I believe them TO BECOME, His body and blood.' To this passage, and the authorities assumed in support of the doctrine it contains, further consideration will be subsequently given; but it is quoted now in order to show how very close is the connexion between Dr. Pusey and the unwise Romanist, even in a case where a distinction is affected."

According to the view taken by Dr. Pusey, Mr. Meller contends that "the Saviour is represented as then meeting the cavil of the Jews, not as the ancient Fathers teach us, by showing that His words were to be spiritually understood, but by a subtle argument blending the mystery of His incarnation with the nourishment and supporting efficacy of the grace which belongs to His Deity. Let us endeavour to analyse the steps of the reasoning which we have now before us. Christ was Bread: in what sense? in his Deity, or in his humanity? Clearly in his divine nature, for He himself declares, I am the bread WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN. Now, the flesh and blood of his human body came not down from heaven, but were conceived and formed in the womb of the virgin: and yet three several times in the course of this chapter, at verses 41, 50, 58, is this descriptive attribute, marking its divine origin, added to the mention of that Living Bread. It belongs, then, to the Deity of the Lord to be Bread; and as the first step in the reasoning is the statement that Christ was Bread, in no other sense can we therefrom deduce that his flesh can be eaten, than in that which belongs also to his being Bread. But if, for the sake of placing our argument clearly, the boldness of the expression may be pardoned, let us ask, How can Deity be eaten? How, apart from incarnate form, or sacramental emblem, can that which is heavenly, from heaven, be bread? It would only be amidst some of the strange violations of all reason to which the doctrine of transubstantiation may lead, or the degrading inferences which may be drawn from it, that any other reply could be given than that this is to be spiritually or analogically understood; that the strengthening power of divine grace being to the believing soul similar to the nourishment of bread to the body, it has pleased the Lord thus in symbolic language to express his own spiritual efficacy in the hearts of his people. Spiritually, as speaking of the work of his Deity, must it be understood that Christ is bread; and therefore we maintain, spiritually also is it that his flesh is to be eaten. But it may be urged that our reasoning proceeds on an undue separation of the Deity and Humanity of Him who in his twofold nature was yet One, the God-man, Christ Jesus. We reply, in the language of the ancient creed, that He was 'One, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person.' The argument which would establish that the flesh of Christ is to be eaten in any outward, visible, tangible, material manner, because He who was bread from heaven became visible, tangible, material flesh, involves a confusion of attributes.

"Of his Deity Christ spoke, saying, I am Bread.

"He, having that Deity, became flesh and therefore it is argued that "Flesh is bread, or gives life.

"But that we may not be open to the charge of misrepresentation, we will quote, from page 20, the distinct avowal of this as the doctrine to which Dr. Pusey would lead his reader, the conclusion for which the argument is used: His flesh and blood in the sacrament shall give life, not only because they are the flesh and blood of the Incarnate Word, who is life, but also because they are the very flesh and blood which were given and shed for the life of the world.' Let this be especially noticed. His flesh and blood in the sacrament are the very flesh and blood which were given and shed for the life of the world:' and 'these give life.' Now, as we have already stated, the reasoning of page 8, on which this statement may be said mainly to rest, is faulty in deducing an attribute concerning the suffering humanity of the Lord, from his own declaration of the power and work of his Deity. Let the same line of argument be followed in another case, and the Trinitarian is deprived of one of his strongest holds of defence, from which he rebuts the charge of contradictory statement, as urged by the Socinian.

"Christ was in his Deity one with the Father.

"But he, having that Deity, became flesh.

And, therefore, that flesh was one with the Father: but He himself, speaking of his human form, saith, My Father is greater than I.

There must be some fallacy in the argument which results in such a contradiction, and it is in each case in drawing an inference concerning that which was human, from what our Lord spoke of his divine and heavenly nature. We return,

then, to our former conclusion, that the requirement to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man is to be understood in the same sense in which he called his divine power and grace, bread-spiritually, or in the way of comparison. But the sense in which all the words of the Saviour on this point are taken by Dr. Pusey is, throughout his sermon, sacramental. Taking the holy rite afterwards instituted as that which was intended by the Saviour in his discourse on the sixth chapter of John, he avoids, indeed, the carnal literality of the Jews in its grosser notions, but on the other hand limits to an outward act and a visible ceremonial those expressions, which we shall show were understood by the early Fathers in a far more spiritual sense of the inward life of the soul, and the feelings of dependance on a Saviour's power, which have their seat within the heart."

Against the literal sense of the passage, Origen had warned the early Church in the following words, after having quoted the 53d verse :

"For if you take those words as carnal men, they injure, not nourish you; for there is also in the Gospels a letter which killeth, and it is not only in the Old Testament that such is found. In the New Testament, also, there is the letter which killeth him that does not spiritually understand what is said; for if according to the letter you follow what is really said, Unless ye eat my flesh and drink my bloodthis is a letter which killeth.'

"Again, let us learn from Athanasius, whose well-known zeal in the cause of orthodoxy against the Arian errors in the fourth century, has justly earned for him a distinguished place in the annals of ecclesiastical fame. He forcibly writes:

"To how many would His body suffice for food, that this should be the nourishment of all the world? And therefore He mentioned the ascending of the Son of Man into heaven, that he might draw them away from material thoughts, and that they might then learn that the flesh spoken of as meat was a heavenly and spiritual nourishment given from above by Him; for He saith, The things I have spoken to you are spirit and life; which is equivalent to saying, that which is set forth and given for the world shall be given as food, so as to be spiritually distributed to each, and to be to all a safeguard until the resurrection to eternal life.'

"The reader's attention is requested to this expression of the great champion of our faith at the Council of Nice: The flesh spoken of as meat was a heavenly and spiritual nourishment given from above by Him. According to Dr. Pusey, the flesh spoken of was that which suffered on the cross, and the eating of which is continued until now by the Eucharistic bread 'becoming' it.

"Cotemporary with the last-cited authority was Eusebius, of Cæsarea, the famous ecclesiastical historian of the times of Constantine. After quoting the words of the Saviour in John vi. 61-63, he adds,

"Thus He taught them to understand spiritually, what He had said about his flesh and blood: Do not suppose that I speak of the flesh with which I am surrounded, as though you were to eat it, nor imagine that I command you to drink visible and material blood; but know that my words which I speak to you are spirit and are life; so that his very words and discourses are the flesh and blood of which he who partakes shall have a heavenly life, as being nourished with heavenly bread.'

The author proceeds in like manner with a Catena from other fathers, until he completely cuts the ground from under Dr. Pusey.

Mr. Meller very allowably twits Dr. Pusey with an unwarrantable use of “ UltraProtestant private judgement, in choosing to agree with or differ from the early writers of the Church. In the exercise of this, the opinion of one father is adopted, and that of another rejected: the authority of one is advanced as with the force of one who said all things right, and then, when the opinion or exposition would not suit, another is preferred-just after the manner of those who feel that, in reading the Fathers, they must have Scripture as their one rule by which to try the truth of