Page images
PDF
EPUB

to a parallel to the consecration of the Aaronic Priests by “filling the hands" with portions of the sacrifice. (See Exod. xxix. 9, marg.)

The expression "and showed it” is peculiar to Greek S. James and Constantinopolitan S. Basil.

$ 76. The Great Oblation. The Great Oblation—the position of which has, we think, been misunderstood—follows. We cannot print it, for the reason already mentioned. We must, however, notice briefly two or three points. (1) The word opoopépouėv (we offer) is not limited to the moment in which it first occurs ; (2) Its peculiar force

—WHEREFORE we offer—would be lost by change of position ; (3) It occurs in the very middle of the Consecration, linking what precedes and what follows, and in the very closest connection with both.

We must defer the consideration of the question of quotations from this portion of the Liturgy, and our notes upon the remaining portion of the rite, till next month.

(To be continued.)

Reviews and Notices. We do not commonly make it our business to notice books belonging to the learned languages. But so much depends on correcting the faults in the A. V. of the New Testament that we make an exception in behalf of Mr. Nicolson's Classical Revision of the Greek of the New Testament. (Williams and Norgate.) The work, though not altogether what we could wish, is very creditable to the Author, who appears to be a Presbyterian Minister. To show the importance of the subject, we will point out some of the doctrines which a careful attention to grammar is sufficient to divest of all that uncertainty, which the desire to please the Foreign Reformers induced our Translators unhappily to leave so obscure, that Calvinists and Puritans are able to quote passages on their side which, if rightly understood, have quite an opposite meaning. Thus it becomes plain that Salvation is offered not to the few but to all. 2. Thus Justification and Regeneration are seen to be gifts imparted to all the Baptized. 3. Thus Confirmation is seen to be the bestowal of the HOLY GHOST. 4. Thus the use of the terms Altar and Priesthood and Sacrifice are vindicated. These may be quoted as examples of doctrine that will be cleared by a careful study of the grammar of the New Testament in the original language ; and as helping on this study we gladly recommend Mr. Nicolson's little Volume, though of course its Author has not yet realised these verities.

We are glad to chronicle the commencement of The Gregorian Quarterly Magazine (Griffith and Farran) which has reached its second Number. The special dangers, it appears to us, which they must avoid, are the advocacy of too elaborate a rendering of the Church Tones, and the revival of some Hymn Tunes which it will be impossible to reconcile to English ears.

Of a kindred nature is the revival of an Ecclesiological Society which has very appropriately taken its rise from the Cathedral of the Metropolis.

Mr. Sadler has published a small volume in reply to the cant of the day, of which Mr. Moody may be considered the chief exponent, respecting “present salvation” and all that is involved in that theory. It is entitled Justification of Life. (Bell and Sons.) The logic, as is usual with Mr. Sadler's publications, is severe and the reading by no means light; but any who have been perplexed by the confident assertions of these false teachers will gladly welcome the Volume. May we suggest to Mr. Sadler that a little attention to etymology and grammar would greatly assist and strengthen his arguments. Thus to justify means according to the analogy of the English language, to make just or righteous, not to impute righteousness. And secondly the Greek verbs and participles which speak of regeneration and justification all belong to past tenses—so that justification and regeneration are the common inheritance of all Christians; and there is no conceivable way in which they can have been imparted but by Baptism, when faith had led the convert to seek that Sacrament.

It is at all times a great advantage to obtain the testimony of an independent witness, and especially is this the case in theological controversies, when feelings so often warp the judgment. Such a witness is the Rev. E. W. Sergeant, Assistant Master of Winchester College, (whom we find from Crockford to be a Balliol First Class Man,) who has just published a Pamphlet entitled Ritualism : how far reasonable ? (Church Printing Company. We have seldom read anything more calculated to do good; for it invites attention to the question which is really at issue, viz., letting alone all faults or extravagancies of individuals, how ought Churchmen to desire that worship in their Churches should be conducted—and as a corollary from the foregoing, how ought Bishops to deal with Ritualists ?—The tone of the Pamphlet is exceedingly sensible and moderate.

Correspondence. (The Editor is not responsible for the opinions of the Correspondents.]

To the Editor of the Churchman's Companion.
Answers.

therefore seems advisable, of further evi

dence that Dr. Neale was mistaken in ANCIENT LITURGIES.

thinking S. Paul quoted the Liturgy. SIR,—My letter of April has not quite I have already shown that the Liturconvinced Mr. Jones as to the quotation gies' change of S. Paul's nominative to of 1 Cor. ii. 9 by the Jerusalem (and a vocative (not a “slight difference”) is Alexandrian) Liturgy. A pendant to it an undeniable proof of their being the

quoters, and that the demonstrated grammaticalness of the verse entirely disposes of Neale's hypothesis. Mr. Jones objects that I have not shown it to be "anything like a verbal quotation of Isaiah.” That can easily be done, for what I before said applies only to the LXX., but S. Paul gives it from the Hebrew.

The phrase “it is written” is no sign of exact quotation any more than “the Scripture, or Holy Ghost, or He saith," and the like. What they prove is that the Old Testament is quoted. The citation in question is as exact as others in S. Paul. He sometimes gives quite different words, omits, adds, transposes, even when LXX. and Hebrew accord. He makes substantial verbal changes in 1 Cor. i. 19 and iii. 20, Gal. iii. 10 and iv. 30, and Eph. iv. 8, especially in Rom. x. 6 and xiv. 11. In Rom. xi. 9 he adds a clause of his own, and in Rom. xi. 26 from Isa. lix. 20, he brings one from xxvii. 9, just as in the verse before us. Taking words as Mr. Jones does, p. 199, Rom. ix. 33, quoting Isa. viii. 14, has “not one word in common with LXX.,” as may almost be said of Rom. xi. 4, and 1 Cor. xiv. 21, and Rom. ix. 25 where Heb. and LXX. agree. So 2 Cor. vi. 16–18 is a very free handling, ver. 18 barely traceable.

Now in 1 Cor. ii. 9 S. Paul goes to the original Hebrew, Isa. lxiv. 4; lxv. 17. His ophthalmos ouk eide, eye hath not seen, is the exact Greek of Isaiah's gnain lo raathah ; his ous ouk ekouse, ear hath not heard, is a natural rendering of the twofold lo shamegnu, lo heezinu, the latter being the derivative verb of ozen, ear, and meaning to perceive with the ear. He has inserted the clause kai epi kardian ...ouk anebe, neither have ascended upon the heart, which exactly represents the velo thagnalenah gnal leb of lxv. 17: his hetoimasen, hath prepared, is a correct translation of Isaiah's yagnaseh, the verb is so rendered by LXX. Esther v. 14 and vi. 14, (and Vulg. imitates him :) which leaves only one word, mechakkeh, waiting,

upomenon, really changed to agaposin loving, because he applies it to the Gospel; and he reiterates in the preceding verses 6–8 the tou aionos, of the world, with which Isaiah begins the passage, a connexional evidence which it. self proves that the Apostle is quoting Isaiah's verse, the expression reminded him of it.

It is also proved beyond dispute by Clement's Epistle, his only work, of near the end of the first century. As a “ fellow-labourer” he knew all about S. Paul and his writings, and he particularly mentions 1 Cor. and the divisions treated of in chap. i. He quotes the passage in question, of chap. ii., and in a way that shows he knew only of Isaiah as the source of S. Paul's words. Clement writes: "For he saith, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have ascended upon the heart of man, the things which He hath prepared for them that wait for Him.” The third person, He hath prepared, proves this is taken from S. Paul, and the change at the end proves the Apostle took it from Isaiah. For the Liturgies of course make no acknowledgment of their borrowings from Scripture, so are free to take or leave what they like, as memory serves or brevity requires; but S. Paul says, “it is written,” which Clement, applying the verse to the future state, has held to justify a re-alteration of S. Paul's agaposin, love Him, back to Isaiah's upomenousin, wait for Him. This he would certainly not have done had the passage been taken from the Liturgy.

The Smyrnian Epistle about Polycarp, seventy years after Clement, also cites 1 Cor. ii. 9, and follows his example of alteration : “the good things reserved for them that have waited, tois upomeinasin, which eye hath not seen,” &c., that writer therefore took the words from S. Paul, as those of Isaiah.

It is curious to find Mr. Jones, after objecting to S. Paul's taking the verse from Isaiah, that he differs from LXX., yet assuming the Liturgy's doing so, because it takes Ter Sanctus from Isa. vi., and “appears to borrow” a word or so elsewhere that the prophet employs (of which athetesosi is noways parallel.) The notion is baseless : how should the Liturgist, using only LXX., have given the rare rendering by hetoimazo instead of the LXX.'s common one poieo ? why did he not retain upomenousin ? and whether his “gifts” doremata be used of present gifts of grace, as S. Jas. i. 17, or less naturally of the world to come, such an application to them by him of Isaiah's words (who actually had seen and heard the heavenly glories, ch. vi.) were most unlikely, and scarcely possible unless S. Paul had previously adopted them, appositely to his argument of the Gospel dispensation, future to the prophet.

S. Paul's verse is also quoted by the Alexandrian, in the same vocative way, but better connection. According to Mr. Jones this is as “primitive” and independent as the Jerusalem, so they have not copied it one from the other. It might be said, they may have both got it from Isaiah and happened to use the same words, but sober reason can only see in such coincidence, which is not the only one, a proof that both have quoted S. Paul.

One false step leads to others : the Liturgy's “blotting out the handwriting" &c., “ may be the original of Col. ii. 14," and the same of “ several places" besides ! although without any “it is written,” or other sign of quoting. But important matters will not hang on unsupported “may be,” and no dispassionate reader of this Liturgy can admit the idea, without a particle of real proof, that its borrowed jewels of Inspiration were the compiler's own. The citation of the same words several times by the Liturgy is a token of its non-originality. It quotes from 1 Thess. v. 23 and from Heb. ix. 7 four times, expressions which if its own would hardly have been so repeated. It culls rather freely from Hebrews, as might be expected, but how can we suppose that that sublime

Epistle owes anything to this unmentioned document and who had ever imagined that the Liturgies were not taking all their Scripture phrases from Scripture, if Dr. Neale had not made his sad mistake on 1 Cor. ii. 9 through not finding it in the LXX.?

To dismiss the subject. No one can say how far the existing copies of the Liturgies represent the outline of an Apostolic ritual, orally transmitted and probably first written in the fictitious Constitutions (else why insert it ?) or that any particular words of their own are really primitive ;' so much being clearly posterior to the Ecumenical Councils, of times when the glorifying of B.V.M. and intercession of saints was in vogue and the Eucharistic Mystery unwisely expressed. In our own dignified formularies the Anglican Branch of the Church Catholic (nothing can be kath holon but what the whole approves) teaches the true doctrine of the Real Presence in the sacred elements without the ergo or sequitur that individual theorists may think a “logical necessity” of it, but which tends to land in error and loss of the cup of blessing. She binds to no dogmatising “is or is not,” unwarranted by Scripture, in matters beyond human logic; and her appeal to the Old Fathers respects their general and collated teaching, not a chance rhapsody of Chrysostom picked out of his dozen folios, nor a casual slip of Cyril, easily righted by Ignatius or Justin or even himself, to terms according

1 Justin Martyr's account quite consists with an oral liturgy; and on Basil's “which of the saints left us eggraphos in writing the words [of the liturgy]? ... we receive them from the agraphou unwritten teaching," Daniel says, “patet ... Basilium ignorasse liturgias ab ipsis apostolis conscriptas." S. Paul quoted the “written” Word.

2 The Rubric, p. 194, is no sign of the

very earliest times,” for there were many accounts of the Incarnation, &c., more or less in use for centuries, and the New Testament Canon was not settled till the fourth.

with Bible Truth.-Yours, &c., PHILALETHES.

[The answer of the author of “Primitive Liturgies” will appear next month. -Ed.]

“THE GREAT THEOLOGIANS OF THE

CHURCH OF ENGLAND.”

SIR, -Allow me space just to say that the name of Overall, author of the last part of the Catechism, accidentally slipped out of my list. It ought to have come in after or before that of Sanderson.-Yours, &c., THE WRITER OF THE ARTICLE.

EASTER DAY IN 1699. SIR,-I beg to inform AGNES that Easter Day in 1699, according to the Julian calendar, fell on April 19, and therefore Palm Sunday on April 12th, at Mecklenburg Schwerin.-Yours, &c., G. H. F.

P.S.—I have only just heard this from a correspondent at Mecklenburg Schwerin.

mastery in the Church of England for the last eight years or so, with an energy which nothing could supply but a conviction that this was the final and decisive conflict. And the time appears to be now come when we may reasonably enquire where the victory is likely to rest. The three parties of course are the High, and Low, and Broad Church, but they have not had the same opponents : the Broad Church have been contending against the Faith, as embodied in the Creeds: the Low Church has been marshalled against the High, and the High Church has been striving against sin and indifference. What then now is out-look ?

1. The Broad Church party seem long ago to have done their worst, in such publications as “ Supernatural Religion,” which have been again and again shown to be worthless. Of course there is a large residuum of unintellectual infidelity, as there ever has been, and ever will be, the only difference being that if left to itself it gladly hides its head beneath the vices which have led to it. Latterly it has been able to put on an appearance of respectability under the patronage of a sceptical philosophy (so called.) But now it will revert to its ordinary obscurity.

2. The Low Church party by the employment of a system of espionage and false witness and the appeal to the carnal weapons of the law, have lost spirituality, while up to this time they have gained nothing in exchange, for the judgments which they thought they had secured have been shown to be based upon a false interpretation both of law and history-morally they are unquestionably defeated. At the same time it is evident that dissent, with which they are disposed to symbolize, is showing signs of approaching disintegration. The number of ministers from all the sects who are seeking admission into the Church is very great; while the Wesleyans feel plainly very uneasy at the appeal that is being made to the principles of their founder. The elder members are not likely to be shaken to any appreciable

THE ALTAR FLOWER.

SIR, — Perhaps your correspondent M. A. C. H. may like to know that the beautiful Eucharis Amazonica is used in Mexico for Church purposes, and is there called the Altar Flower.-Yours, &c., E. HURST.

PRACTISING SOCIETY.

SIR,-In answer to “INA,” for rules of a Practising Society, I should be most happy to forward a copy to her, (if she would let me have her address) of the Rules of a Society of which I am Secretary. Trusting I am not too late to have her address in next month's number,Yours, &c., C. S. PAULL, Sec., D. P. Society, Bosvige House, Truro, Cornwall.

Queries.

THE OUT-LOOK.

SIR,-It would seem to an outsider, as if three Parties had been fighting for the

« PreviousContinue »