Ye grateful vassals, ye who sing, Sweet denizens of wood and mead, K. B. K. Reviews and Notices. Confirmation, by a Deaconess, with Preface by the Dean of Chester (Griffith and Farran,) is in advance of many similar treatises, by giving the right definition of that Rite as a means of strengthening the regenerate soul and so avoiding the once popular theory of the candidate confirming his own vows. At the same time the prominence given to the idea of a covenant goes far to neutralize the better theory, for it implies that GOD only acts on the condition of man doing something on his part; whereas really the presence of the HOLY GHOST, as in Baptism and in the Eucharist and Ordination, is absolute and certain. He is present either for good or evil, and hence the great awfulness of those Sacraments and Sacramental Rites, which can on no account be repeated. Another mistake which the writer makes is to connect the term Sacrament with the Roman military oath. It is simply a sacred Rite derived from the Latin adjective, sacer. We are glad to see that a new Edition (the eighth) of The Sinless Sufferer (Skeffington,) has been called for. The sermons are very genuine and unconventional. We have been much pleased with two little volumes, Boys and Girls, their work and influence. (Skeffington.) Under the head of Religion the writer does not hesitate to advise young persons to resort to a Priest when spiritual difficulties beset them, for counsel and if need be for absolution. The Religious Tract Society has published a valuable and learned work on The Jewish Temple and its Services, by Dr. Edersheim. We notice in it one silly remark about not turning to the east in prayer; but on the other hand his testimony to the Gregorian Tones is, as coming from an unexpected quarter, worth recording. “There is no reason to doubt (he writes) that in the so-called Gregorian Tones we have preserved to us a close approximation to the ancient Hymnody of the Temple." In other words they partake in a measure of the inspiration of the Psalter. The new edition of The Priest's Book of Private Devotions, (Mowbray,) to which the name of Dr. Oldknow and Mr. Crake were originally attached, is a great improvement on its predecessor both as to arrangement and contents. It is now the best book of the kind with which we are acquainted. Meditations from the French of Madame Swetchine, (Hayes,) though of course devout, do not read well in the English. The fault may be in part that of the translator, but French books seldom commend themselves to us. At the We are glad to meet Miss Jones again in a series of Stories. These are on the Catechism, (Hayes,) and will be quite a treat to juvenile readers. end of each number will be found some useful catechetical instruction. Helps to Worship: a Manual for Holy Communion and Daily Prayer, (Mowbray,) bearing the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Oxford, are very simple, and we are not surprised that they have reached a Third Edition. There is a copious selection of Hymns appended. The Rev. G. C. Caffin, whose devotional writings are of considerable merit, has published Words about our Lord, (Masters,) which are really four sermons for Passiontide and Easter; we should have been glad to have been able to recommend them at an earlier date. They contain much pious thought. Debrett's Peerage, Baronetage, and Knightage for 1879, illustrated with armorial bearings, edited by Robert H. Mair, LL.D. (Dean and Son, London.) The two very handsome volumes which under the above designation give the most complete and detailed information respecting the titled personages of the British realms, have a value far beyond that which they possess as accurate books of reference. They are historically interesting, and much light is thrown on the past of our own and other countries by their careful statements of the origin and circumstances of many notable families. These volumes certainly fulfil the purpose for which they are compiled, with perfect success. Our readers will not have forgotten a charming tale entitled Regent Rosalind, which appeared in our pages some years since, and a second by the same author, Phil's Mother, also brought out by us somewhat later. Both these admirable works have now been published separately by Messrs. Tinsley, London. They form two volumes decidedly attractive both externally and internally, and the last of the two has the addition of a couple of very pretty new stories, Edith and Patty, and Georgie's Christmas Holidays. Under the nom de plume of Cherith, Miss Surtees has published three small vols. of tales, (Partridge and Hatchard.) They are nicely written, but somewhat too didactic, several being intended to enforce the duty of temperance, of which the authoress is an earnest advocate, as well she may be. Correspondence. [The Editor is not responsible for the opinions of the Correspondents.] To the Editor of the Churchman's Companion. Answers. ANCIENT LITURGIES. SIR,-If, in writing upon the Ancient Liturgies, I have been led by enthusiasm into the error of ascribing a too early origin to them, I err in the very best company, as I have but followed in the steps of Archbishop Wake and the author of "Origines Liturgica." Is it not possible for persons to be led astray by prejudice? This by the way. Passing by the opinion that "Anglican" and "Catholic" are necessarily synonymous terms, and the remark about "strained and inconclusive reasoning," I come to Criticism No. 1. Let me say at once that I am obliged to PHILALETHES for it, and would accept it, but for two considerations. First, I don't feel certain that the expression in the Egyptian version is an idiom, because it may be; Secondly, I doubt very much indeed whether a Greek Liturgy of a Greekspeaking and I believe, cultured Church, would go out of its way to copy an Egyptian translation. I think it more reasonable to suppose it took the passage from its own Greek Testament. The statement was made on the authority of Hammond's Liturgies Eastern and Western. (Introd. p. lii.) Mr. Hammond, I know, is not led away by enthusiasm, but I have called his attention to the objection. 2. Us His Apostles. (1.) The Liturgies do retain features which are obsolete, as witness the formula for Expulsion of Catechumens; so that this criticism will not hold. (2.) It may be so; the theory is at any rate no better than Dr. Littledale's. (3.) I cannot see how this applies; the point is not us, but "us His Apostles." Your readers will, however, notice that I built no theory upon this point. 3. The point about 1 Cor. ii. 9 is that S. Paul says 66 as it is written." Now, although PHILALETHES employs some very able special pleading to show that the passage may be in agreement with the laws of grammar, yet he has not brought forward sufficient evidence to render the other opinion untenable, while, whether it be or not, there is one statement which he has not dared to make, viz., that the passage is anything like a verbal quotation of Isaiah lxiv. 4. There remains therefore this questionWill the facts warrant the statement that S. Paul has only quoted the “ general idea?" The answer to this is to be obtained by examining all the places where he uses the expression "It is written." This I proceed to do. S. Paul says "It is written" twentynine times, exclusive of the passage under consideration. Of these (a) fourteen introduce a verbal quotation from the LXX., viz. :-Rom. i. 17; iii. 4; iv. 7; viii. 36, ix. 13; xiv. 11; xv. 3; xv. 9; xv. 21; 1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Cor. x. 7; 2 Cor. ix. 9; Gal. iv. 27; 1 Tim. v. 18; (b) two introduce verbal quotations from the Hebrew, viz. :-Rom. x. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 19; (c) five introduce quotations which do not agree with the received Greek or Hebrew, but are supported by some various readings. These are Rom. iii. 10 (agrees with the Vatican Text and some ancient translations) Rom. xi. 26 (a minor difference, but a various text supports S. Paul); 1 Cor. i. 19, (verbal except last word, one MS. of LXX. supports S. Paul); 1 Cor. xiv. 21 (agrees with Aquila's version); 2 Cor. viii. 15 (difference of one word-which agrees with Hebrew) (d) three introduce quo tations which are pieced together from two places, but are in literal agreement with both. These are Rom. ix. 32, 33 (all the words can be obtained from the two-nothing is added) xi. 8 (a similar case) Rom. xii. 19 (half strictly Hebrew; half strictly Greek); (e) four are substantially accurate, viz.: 1 Cor. i. 31, (abridged, gives leading words) 1 Cor. xv. 45 (inserts "first man Adam," necessary to argument). Gal. iii. 10 (exact in spirit-one word for another). Gal. iii. 13 (substantially verbal.) (ƒ) one is not an attempt at quotation, but an historical statement-Gal. iv. 22, "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free-woman." The answer then to the statement that S. Paul quotes only the general idea, is that in the twenty-eight other instances in which he prefaces a quotation with the phrase "It is written," the quotation is either literal or substantially verbal, though he does not always quote the same version; and that therefore since in this particular instance he departs so strikingly from the only passage which has been brought forward, he is quoting, not directly from that passage, but from some document, which, did it exist, we should probably find was borrowing from Isaiah, not however by actual quotation, but by imitation of phrases and ideas. And in the Anaphora of the venerable Liturgy of S. James we have a document which not only contains the identical passage (with the slight difference between Vocative and Nominative) and an expressed antecedent to ha ophthalmos, and does undoubtedly borrow from Isaiah; but also does actually, in the immediate context, appear to borrow phrases and ideas from the context of Isaiah lxiv. 4. It opens in language resembling a part of the Gloria in Excelsis, (language which I believe is borrowed from the Jewish Church, since it occurs in the Passover Service of the Mishna) goes on to speak of the celestial Jerusalem, using a term (paneguris) which at least may come from Is. lxvi. 10 and be quoted in Heb. xii. 22, 23; and continues in language which is derived from Is. vi. 2, and 3. Then, directly after the words of Institution, the second coming of our LORD is mentioned, and this seems to have suggested Is. lxiii. 1, et seqq., for the Liturgy goes on to speak of our LORD's glorious and terrible coming as Judge, to recompense (cf. Is. lxiii. 4, 7, LXX.) It then, after working in a passage from Ps. ciii. 10, beseeches GOD, according to His gentleness and ineffable love to man, (cf. Is. lxiii. 7,) to blot out the handwriting which is against His suppliants, (a passage which may be the original of Col. ii. 14,) and grant them His heavenly and eternal bounties which eye hath not seen, &c. (Is. lxiv. 4.) "and upon the heart of man have not ascended," (cf. Is. lxv. 17,) and which He has prepared for them that love Him, (returning to Is. lxiv. 4.) Then it goes on directly to beseech GOD not to set at nought His people (cf.1 Is. lxiii. 8, LXX.) because His people and His Church supplicate Him, (cf. Is. lxiv. 9, "for we are Thy people") and then passes on into a quasi-intercession on behalf of Sion. (cf. Is. lxiv. 9, 10.) Perhaps PHILALETHES will call this "strained and inconclusive reasoning," but the fact that in the Liturgy there are traces of borrowing from Isaiah, while there are none in the Epistle, (save the allusion to the Holy Spirit, which may have come from the Liturgy,) is surely a strong argument that the Liturgist, and not S. Paul, threw this passage into the form in which they both have it. I believe that the argument is not even yet fully stated, but I think this alone ought to settle the question. I hope PHILALETHES will bear with me while I make some remarks upon his last paragraph, even if he should think them "strained and inconclusive reasoning." The point is, not whether the Liturgies contain terms not used by the Apostles, for such terms may conceivably "be a 1 μὴ ἀθετήσωσι (LXX.) μὴ ἀθετήσῃς (Liturgy.) translation of the language of one intellectual period into the language of another," but whether they represent primitive teaching. I believe they do. For, (1) there are five liturgical families, representing six or seven separated bodies of Christians, so divided as to be clear of any suspicion of collusion. (2) Some have been divided since A.D. 451, some since A.D. 431, and anything common to the five must be as old as A.D. 430. (3) But they all, without exception, teach a doctrine flatly opposed to modern Protestantism, to wit, that of the Real Presence. (4) But further, this doctrine must be primitive, for controversy upon this subject had not arisen till long after the date named. (5) That the type of service is primitive is also evident from these facts: (a) No early Council enjoined a Liturgy, and no Church existed able to force its Liturgy on others; (b) So little did the early Christians care about uniformity that each bishop had the right of drawing up his own Liturgy; and the universal adherence to the one type can only be attributed to (a) intense conservatism, or (8) a belief that it had descended from the Apostles or apostolic men. For practical purposes these are equally valuable. (6) Passing by other allusions in early writers, since they may be denied, we come to the fact that S. Justin Martyr's writings prove one of two things, either (a) that he quotes the Clementine Liturgy, or (b) that he alludes to one formed on precisely the same model; for (not to dwell upon the very curious verbal coincidences between the Liturgy and chap. xxx. of his Dialogue with Trypho) there are, in the description of the Eucharistic Service contained in his First Apology, no less than nine distinct points mentioned, with all of which, in their order, the Clementine Liturgy exactly corresponds. This brings us to A.D. 150. (7) But there is no reason to suppose that S. Justin's Liturgy was an innovation-and so we are entitled to consider that the rise of a Liturgy took place in the Apostolic age. In conclusion, allow me to express my belief that 1 Cor. ii. 9 is only one of several places where the Liturgy of S. James is quoted, and further, that whatever other objections may be reasonably brought against the theory, at any rate that of impossibility is not one of the number. Apologising for the length of this letter, I am, &c.,-D. B. JONES. P.S. Since writing the above I have received a letter from Mr. Hammond, from which I extract the following: "The main point of my argument rests on Prof. (Bp.) Lightfoot's estimate of the Memphitic Version of the N. T. given in Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T., p. 343. 'The Memphitic Version is for the most part a faithful rendering of the original. . This Version may generally be consulted even for minute variations in the text.' "This argument of mine is noticed by Prof. Dr. G. Bickell, of Innsbruck, with approval, in a review of my book in a German periodical. He is an oriental scholar of no mean repute. "This however does not prove anything for a period earlier than the second century-nay, I had rather say (as I put it in my book) 'not later than the fourth." E. C. A.. SIR,-In answer to EUGENE TEESDALE, the letters E. C. A. represent the Eastern Church Association, and Messrs. Rivingtons published the papers alluded to.-Yours, &c., D. BURNARD JONES. OUR LORD ON THE CROSS. SIR, I was interested in the question of your correspondent ANATOMIST, and consulted a distinguished art critic upon it. He tells me that in all the most ancient representations of the crucifixion the wound is depicted on the right side, but there is no indication that any significance was attached to the circumstance. Theories with regard to the rupture of the pericardium are quite of modern date. In earlier times the flow of blood and water being simply accepted as miraculous, it was a matter of indifference on which side the wound was portrayed-no tradition having indicated |