of this, and also shows that the volume of canons was a collection, or digest, of all the general laws extracted from the canons of particular councils, being numbered differently in this general collection from the numbers which they bear in the acts of the several councils which first framed them. And it is put beyond dispute by the edict of Justinian. (Novella. cxxxi. de Confirmatione Codicis Canonum Ecclesiæ Universæ):

"We sanction and give the force of laws to the sacred ecclesiastical canons which have been drawn up, or confirmed, by the four holy councils-to wit, the Nicene of three hundred and eighteen; the Constantinopolitan, of one hundred and fifty fathers; the first of Ephesus, in which Nestor was condemned; and that of Chalcedon, in which both Nestor and Eutyches were anathematized. For we receive the decrees of these holy councils with the same reverence as the sacred Scriptures, and their canons we keep as laws."

The ecclesiastical code thus made a part of the law of the empire has even received a place in the statute law of England (1 Eliz. I. sec. 36). And Bishop Barlow says of it, "This is a book which, next to the Bible, is the most authentic, and by the Catholic Church the most approved and received book in the world." It should be observed, that canons 66 confirmed" by these councils are spoken of in this edict, as well as the canons framed by them; which shows that there was a selection made from existing canons, some of which were not thus confirmed. And as these councils discriminated between local canons, and those which, when thus confirmed by them, became canons of the Universal Church, so we must use the same discrimination in reading ecclesiastical history, and not at once deem a practice to be universal, which we find adverted to in the writings of the fathers, and be slow to account it a practice of the Catholic Church, if we find it not in canons, or authorized documents, of the Catholic Church.

Large portions of the writings of the fathers are fairly entitled to be considered as Church documents, and even as having this Catholic weight. Many of the apologies were adopted by the ancient Church, in the same manner as that of Bishop Jewell was by the Church of England, and thus received a species of Catholic sanction. But some of their writings were addressed to, or adopted by general councils, and read, and approved, and sanctioned by them; and these have, to all intents and purposes, all the weight and authority of canons, or creeds, or any other documents proceeding from the Catholic Church. The causes which gave origin to such documents as these constitute the reasons wherefore we have continual need of them, for understanding aright the controversies of the Church, and ascertaining

the Catholic doctrin e. Heresies arose, new objections to the truth were started, novel interpretations of Scripture were proposed; and in these cases the old and simple definitions of the faith were evaded; and though the faith was the same, it needed to be more strictly defined, and more closely guarded in those points at which the assault was made. But to show that the faith was one, the former creeds were never thrown aside-they were only enlarged, or rendered more precise, as might best suit the case. Of these writings, which were vested with additional authority, and rendered Catholic in being adopted by a general council, we might cite the epistle of Leo I. of Rome, to Flavian of Constantinople, as an instance. A letter this which was written during the Eutychian controversy, and before the meeting of the council of Chalcedon, but which expresses very fully and clearly the orthodox doctrine on this point, and having been read and adopted by the council of Chalcedon, may be regarded as an expression of truly Catholic doctrine-of the doctrine of the Church, both in the East and in the West.

Leo exposes most clearly the source of the Eutychian, and all similar errors, as arising from men searching after hidden truth in a wrong way from men not going to the prophets, and apostles, and gospels, but to their own imaginations, and so becoming teachers of error, instead of disciples of truth. He asserts that all the truth on this question lies in the three points-of faith in God the Father, God the Son, and the flesh or nature which the Son took. And he shows, that as God and man were the parties to be brought into reconciliation, Christ, the Mediator, must needs be of both natures, and both unchanged and distinct as the parties to be reconciled must ever have been, and ever shall be; which work of mediation and nativity in time, nothing diminished his divine, sempiternal generation, as Son of God: but he devoted his entire self to the restoration of man, who had been deceived, that by his virtue he might overcome death, and the devil, who had the power of death. For we should not have been able to overcome death unless he had taken our nature, and made it his own, whom neither sin could contaminate nor death hold captive......Saving, therefore, the proprieties of either nature, and bringing the two natures together in one Person, humility was taken up by majesty, infirmity by virtue, mortality by eternity; and so, to satisfy what was due under our condition, an inviolable nature was united to a nature capable of suffering-that, as it was fitting for our recovery, one and the same Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, both might die by one nature, and might not die by the other. Wherefore, in the entire and perfect nature

of true manhood the true God was born, complete in his own nature, complete in ours. And ours we call all those things which man received from the Creator, and He undertook to restore.

It was with this line of argument fully before them, and ever present to their thoughts, that all the primitive confessions were drawn up, and all the liturgies and forms of worship were arranged. For if the highest creature thing in existence be our very nature impersonated in the Son of God, and the eternal Word incorporated in it, yet so as not to constitute some third or intermediate kind of subsistence, but still to remain true manhood, unchanged by the union; then is it most infallibly true of every other substance, that it undergoes no change whatsoever, as to its creature properties, by being employed for holy purposes, and in those offices of mediation between Christ and his nembers, which impart to them his strength, and make them participant of his salvation. Even in the sacraments the elements remain as they were before; although they are employed by Christ to impart the Holy Ghost to the Church, they are still water, and bread, and wine; and such the primitive Church always held them to be, however highly they may extol the sacraments, and the blessings which we receive by a faithful participation of the same.

It was reserved for the Romanists to enact the folly of deifying matter-first, under the term "Transubstantiation," to suppose the elements to be converted into some undefinable tertium quid, which is totally unlike anything in heaven or on earth; and then, under the guise of relics, and holy places, and holy things, to make all the best feelings of nature minister only to superstition and idolatry. If matter, in the person of Christ himself, has not lost its own former properties, or acquired any new properties, still less can any other kind of matter, which is only subservient to him in fashioning and conforming members for his mystical body, have undergone any change. But as the primitive Church, making the personal subsistence of Christ the groundwork of their theology, could not fail to come to right conclusions concerning the sacramental questions; so the Romanists, having begun with erroneous notions of the sacraments, especially concerning transubstantiation, warped their theology so as to misapprehend the truth concerning the personal subsistence of our Lord; and then, to produce a semblance of consistency, and as a necessary consequence of the first error, feigned that the Virgin Mary, and other saints, are endued with some better flesh and blood than ours; as if we were not all of one common stock, or these men and women came into existence preternaturally.

The evil of transubstantiation is, that it fixes the mind upon the thing, and so worship is really given to it, and not to God. It is not the name we contend against, but the idol; and this, whether it be in crosses, relics, agni dei, pictures, statues, saints, or angels. God alone is the object of worship. The primitive fathers, giving themselves wholly to God and his worship on the one hand, and disgusted by the heathen abominations on the other, were in less danger than we are of making material objects of idolatry. Yet they delighted most in getting into that frame of worship which lifted their spirits into glorious adoration of the abstract Godhead, wholly apart from terrestrial associations or material forms of any kind-magnifying the name of the Triune God in his incomprehensible unity. The form of thought and expression most frequent with them is that of the seraphic hymn or trisagion-" Holy, holy, holy Lord God of Hosts;" which is therefore found so often repeated in all the early liturgies. Tres sunt, sed una Deitas, una essentia, una glorificatio, unus Deus. Trina repetitio cur? nisi quia Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, sanctitate unum sunt? Non dixit semel, ne Filium sequestraret ; non bis, ne Spiritum præteriret; non quater, ne creaturas conjungeret. Et ut ostenderet Trinitatis unam esse Deitatem, cum tertio dixisset, sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, addidit singulariter Dominus Deus Sabaoth.

And like as, for understanding the sacraments, we should first contemplate Him to whom they lead, and without reference to whom they will become idolatrous or vain; so, in our acts of worship, we must first think of God, and rise into communion of spirit with him, that his Spirit may fill every act of worship, and inform every symbol and sacrament; or, instead of approaching him through these material things, we shall rest in them as idols, or turn aside to something else equally offensive to him, and profitless to ourselves. In religious enquiries, as in every inductive process, the only wise, the only safe course is, first to determine the general; but these gentlemen have begun with the particular, and vainly expected thereby to determine the general. Moreover, it is not God's way; he first sent his Son to make himself known, and then, consequent upon that revelation, gave ordinances to the Church. It is presumption and folly to expect to come at the truth in any better way; and if a man will travel out of God's way, and will take his own way, we may fear lest his reason, tasked to a degree which God never meant it to bear, and has not made it strong enough to bear, should give way under the unnatural exertion. We can only account for the bad logic and fatuity of some parts of these publications by such an hypothesis as this.

But let us not lose the lessons of instruction which are taught

by such examples as these-that no piety of the individual, no extent of learning or research, will suffice to keep a man in the Catholic faith, and much less to teach it him. And that the only safety for all, and equally needed by all, is abiding steadfastly in the communion of that Church where we have learnt the truth, and where it abides. And especially, and above all, we should remember that the sacraments of the Church are preeminently those things of the Spirit which can be only by the spiritual man discerned. These are the ordinances by which the life and power of the Holy Ghost are brought into the body, to make it his temple. And the most painful part of this system of theology is, that there is scarcely any recognition of the Holy Ghost as the life of all forms, but the dead things themselves are spoken of as if they were all in all. By Dr. Pusey especially it seems to be distinctly taught that things are endowed, by consecration, with inherent vitality; which, if it were so, would be giving them the incommunicable attributes of God -would be giving to a mere thing the honour due only to the Holy Ghost in that ordinance. Let us fear any, even the most distant approach to this; and let us be content to remain ignorant of such things as are beyond the reach of our understanding -content to receive the fulness of the blessing provided for us by God, without insisting upon first knowing in what precise manner the blessing comes to our hands.

ART. II.-How shall we Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England? By J. CRAIGIE ROBERTSON, M.A. London: Pickering. 1843.

2. A Few Thoughts on Church Subjects; viz., Uniformity, Daily Service, Gown and Surplice, Private Dress, Pews, Preaching. By the Rev. EDWARD SCOBELL, A.M. London: Hatchards.

3. A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of London, at the Visitation in October, 1842. By CHARLES JAMES, Lord Bishop of London. London: Fellowes.

4. A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Guiana, at the Primary Visitation in April, 1843. By WILLIAM PIERCY, Lord Bishop of Guiana. Demerara: Dodgson. THE most careless observer of times and circumstances must perceive that a spirit has been excited among the members of the Anglican Church, and especially among her clergy, which had scarcely an existence fifteen or twenty years ago; and which is neither to be stifled by the cry of Popery, nor to be directed