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 itself 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 eggraphōs 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 66 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.

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?

66

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