modern date at which the doctrine of Transubstantiation became a fixed article of belief. It contains an abundance of curious matter, which will amply repay the trouble of perusal.

The Treatise itself, although somewhat wordy, has some pungent arguments. For instance, it is incredible that a priest can make a body, which was made and existent long before he had his being; that he can make the body of Christ in a wafer, which was made in the womb of the Virgin more than eighteen hundred years ago; that our Saviour should have two contrary bodies at one and the same time, viz. his glorified one and the wheaten one, which the Romanists attribute to him, and that, whilst sitting at the table with his disciples, he should have offered his body, and they should have believed that they partook of it, notwithstanding his visible and corporeal presence in the midst of them. Was Christ then eaten by himself? Strange as these objections may seem, they are those which the advocates of Transubstantiation are bound to answer. Nor is the old argument without force, viz. If Christ's body was eaten by the disciples, nay too by himself, overnight, how could Christ's body have been crucified on the next day? The Country Divine further urges, that if the bread were the real body of Christ, the Son of God and the devil at once entered together into Judas Iscariot; and that if the body and blood of Christ destroy not the bodies of men, how was the Emperor Henry VII. poisoned by the consecrated wafer, and Pope Victor III. by the consecrated cup? Nor is the argument faulty, that as Christ's body was in all things (sin excepted) like unto ours (Heb. ii. 17), the similarity would be destroyed, if it could be reduced within the small dimensions of a wafer. But there is an expression apposite to the sacramental form in Ezek. v. 5, where the third part of the prophet's hair burnt in the fire is called Jerusalem :-the phraseology is parallel:-if then the burnt hair signified or was emblematical of the burning of Jerusalem, so the bread by parity of argument, must in the New Testament be understood to signify or be emblematical of the body of Christ, as the wine was emblematical of his blood. We cannot see how this conclusion can be critically evaded.

One of the strongest arguments against Transubstantiation is, that it invests the priest with the power of making his God: nay, he can make him out of that which but a little before was growing in his field; and, having made him, he adds to the preposterousness of the notion, by eating him. To embellish the picture of absurdity, at one time the Pope supplicates God, then makes him, and represents himself as his vicegerent on earth :to complete it, the Papists should, on the same principle, eat their Pope. In the article on Dr. Wiseman, it was shown that an Arab tribe ate their wheaten God:-what greater folly did they commit, than that which Papists every day commit in

this enlightened age? Cicero conceived it to be the part of madmen to imagine that which they eat to be a God. But Roman Catholics go further in their madness: they carry their God (in the host) perforce, wherever they please; they confine him in a chest or box: nay, Pope Gregory VII. threw the host into the fire; and Lewis the IXth of France pawned it to the Turks, as the security of his ransom from captivity.

But when Roman Catholics assert, that every minute crumb of the wafer, and every drop of the wine, contains a whole and entire Christ, have they never reflected how many Christs must be in the compass of one host, and in the wine of one cup? In other words, have they never reflected, that their doctrine of Transubstantiation, reduced to simple facts, is positive blasphemy? We dislike ridicule cast on religious subjects; but the Romanists are only vulnerable in this point; they are impassibly wrapped in their own conceit, until by ridicule their idolatrous doctrines are shown to be folly. The vulgar argument in Milton's lately-found work, and in other writers of his time, that if the bread be Christ, there is Deus in latrinâ, shows in the strongest manner the blasphemy and absurdity to which this doctrine may be carried. The Romanists in making Christians God-eaters, debase them below the most abject of the Pagans. Yet to Lord John Russell and his fellow-Radicals, they appear the most sublime of theologians. Doubtless their sublimity in theology is on a par with their own in politics. Par nobile fratrum!

The Country Divine discusses, at a very considerable length, the Eucharistical words, on which rests the dispute between ourselves and the Papists; and by a comparison of many passages analogous in construction, establishes our interpretation of them on an immovable foundation. On the same principle circumcision was called the covenant, although it was only the sign or seal of it. The Lamb was also denominated the Passover, though it was but the sign of the Lord passing over the houses of the Israelites. The cup likewise is used by St. Matthews for the wine which was in it, and is itself in like manner called the New Testament by St. Luke.|| Nay, even Bellarmine was obliged in more than one passage to confess, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation rested on the authority of councils and the tradition of the Church; and Cardinal Cajetan acknowledged, that the gospel nowhere expressed the mutation of the bread into the body of Christ. The foolish dispute of the Romanists, whether. Christ be present under a form or in quantity and quality, is well known.

* Gen. xl. 12, 18; xli. 26. Ezek. xxxvii. 11. xi. 14; xiii. 38. John x. 9; xv. 2. Rev. i. 20; + Gen. xvii. 10.

§ Matt. xxvi. 27. cf. 1 Cor. xi. 25.

Dan. vii. 17. Matt. xvii. 9. 1 Cor. x. 4.

Exod. xii. 11.
Luke xxii. 20.

These specimens are sufficient to show, that every one who would satisfy himself respecting this controversy, should peruse the work, which Mr. Stephen has sensibly caused to be reprinted.

Notes Abroad and Rhapsodies at Home. By a VETERAN TRAVELLER. 2 Vols. London: Longman and Co. 1837.

WE scarcely remember to have examined a work so abusive, and teeming with self-conceit, as the present: it begins with an omnium-gatherum of insipid discussions and absurd remarks, and jumbles together unconnected subjects in as marvellous a manner as Grimaldi formerly did his petty larcenies in the capacious pockets of his breeches. The Veteran Traveller couches his lance against every one, and verily breaks it in right chivalrous style: like Esau, his hand is against every man, and he cannot be surprised if every man's hand should be against him. By way of a preface he furnishes us with a long recriminatory chapter against the reviewers; but though we mix not ourselves in the quarrel between him and them, it must be admitted, that the gross and ungentlemanly personalities in which he indulges, the coarse and undignified language in which he sends forth his vituperations, are but little in favour of his cause; and that if his former works were as flippantly impertinent as this, the reviewers would have neglected their duty to the public, had they noticed them in a manner different from that which has excited his scurrility.

The author prates much about religion, but his own is lamentably wanting in charity; his raking up of private character, his detail of private anecdotes, and malevolent disturbance of the dead, show that, whatever may be the religion which he professes, it is copiously admixed with leaven and wickedness. We hate cant and fanaticism, wherever we meet with them; but we hate them more, when we see them joined to pharisaic sanctimoniousness and illiberality. The writer is one, who, instead of disseminating peace, would kindle a fire, and send a sword upon the earth; he is an acetic religionist, but one who sometimes profanely puns on things connected with religion; and, unless we greatly err, he has in more instances than one incurred the penalties which the laws against libel can award. For example, we think his inuendos against Lady Blessington, whatever faults she may have, of this description; at all events, they are as contemptible as they are cowardly.

His second volume is decidedly better than his first; and, divested of these objectionable parts, and of his absurd rhapsodies, both might have maintained a respectable rank among the lighter reading of the day; but they are too imperfect and weak ever to have attained a distinguished eminence. They treat of places and circumstances for the most part well known

before, and are little better than a text-book, which requires amplification from the labours of others. The Veteran is opposed to Catholicism, and, perhaps, here only our principles agree. He has given an account of many pretended miracles by which the Papists are deluded, and has exposed several Popish tricks: his remarks on absolution, &c. are also good; and his detail of the murder of Arialdus-of the Fête des Vignerons-and of the commemoration of the third century of the Reformation at Geneva is very interesting. Still we conceive that he might have exposed the errors of the Romanists in a more striking and argumentative manner. We trust, that if he should again appear before the public, he will not mar the better part of his writings by the impertinencies of his pen; and that while molesting every one by the snarlings of his cynicism, he will not complain if he is greeted with snarls in return.

Verschoyle: A Roman Catholic Tale of the Nineteenth Century. London: Hatchard and Son. 1837.

FROM the preface it appears that this tale is founded on authentic documents and the personal knowledge of the writer. It is rather weakly written; but the arts, which it attributes to the Papists, are verified by men of unimpeachable name. The author, in some parts, seems to have had an unsteady hand in directing his pencil to the picture, and has somewhat too leniently considered the question in controversy: he certainly has not opposed the "igneus vigor" to the faggots of the Papacy, probably contenting himself with the approbation of the moderate classes.

A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. By EDWARD ROBINSON, D.D. Revised and Corrected by J. T. BLOOMFIELD, D.D. F.S.A. Vicar of Bishbrooke, Rutland. London: Longman and Co. 1837.

WE are not sufficiently acquainted with Dr. Robinson's original edition to pass our observations upon it; but the former meritorious labours of Dr. Bloomfield convince us that the work must have been considerably improved by him. As we find it, (and we suspect that we are much indebted to the editor for so finding it,) we consider it the best Lexicon of the Greek Testament that is extant:-it is not so diffuse as Schleusner's, but it is more correct, and is free from the licentiousness of his interpretations. It is a Lexicon which must be of decided importance to the student, because at almost every word it gives the Hebrew terms, to which the Septuagint translators applied the

same Greek words as occur in the New Testament, and, therefore, will save him, for ordinary purposes, from the trouble of consulting Trommius. Dr. Bloomfield has proved himself a most indefatigable scholar; and his present edition deserves unbounded success. Should he again devote his labours to the New Testament, probably he will favour us with a Dictionary of its peculiar phrases, elucidated by Hebrew and Oriental usage.

Sundry Hymns and Prayers. London. 1837.

WE continually receive a variety of books under these titles, which we cannot individually. notice. The Prayers by Mr. Slade and Mr. Isaacson (the first published by Rivington, the second by Tegg and Son, and Simpkin and Marshall,) are founded on our admirable Liturgy, and excellently adapted to family purposes. Those by Mr. Isaacson form a beautiful little manual, as does also his Companion to the Altar. We think Mr. Freer's hymns rather uncouth in their metre; they certainly are not suited to public worship. Mr. Harvey's are but a new edition of a former collection.

1. The Christian Church, as it stands distinguished from Popery and Puritanism. By the Rev. THOMAS GRIFFITH, A. M. Minister of Ram's Chapel, Homerton. London: J. Burns, Portman-square. 1837.

2. The Apostolic Church. By D. FALLOON. Dublin: Bleakley. 1836.

3. An Apology for the Church of Scotland. By the Rev. J. CUMMINS, M.A. London: Baisler. 1837.

4. A Guide to the Morning and Evening Service of the Church of England. By THOMAS STEPHEN. Edinburgh. 1835.

And other Minor Treatises.

THE various articles, which we have here classed together, are so related to each other in their subjects, that it is most convenient to consider them as branches of a general thesis. The work of Mr. Griffith deserves our attention; but as we have repeatedly discussed at large its leading topics, we must confine ourselves to select remarks. Nevertheless, it merits the perusal of our readers, especially of such as would enter into controverted questions more diffusely than the superabundant other materials of reviewers will permit them to state them. Here the churchman will find able and novel illustrations of the Articles, mixed with frequent strictures on the unscriptural nature and tendency of the Papal religion, and will have the higher satisfaction of observing proofs advanced in support of each particular tenet which falls under consideration. The chapters on the power and