The liturgies which remain to us carry us back close to the apostolic age itself. These liturgies do more than furnish sacrificial names. They exhibit a complicated ritual as observed in all probability by the apostles themselves, certainly by those who had conversed with them, and this framed, not after the model of the synagogue, but after that of the temple of Jerusalem. (P. 60.)

Scanty as are the remains of the apostolic age itself, yet the few pages which have come down speak in most decisive terms of the priestly office. The name of priest indeed does not occur, but its cognate words, offerings,' 'sacrifices,' 'altar,' are frequent, and the three orders of the Christian ministry are made parallel with those of the Jewish priesthood. Thus "at least from the second century the name of priest in its ancient sense was applied as the common distinctive appellation of the Christian minister and there are good grounds for believing that from the beginning it was used as the official name of the celebrant in the sacred offices of the Church." (P. 75.)

We come then to the New Testament itself to the idea sanctioned by the canonical writers. We have already seen reasons why another name should be preferred for temporary use, but we find this name elevated to a position parallel to that of the ancient priest, (1) in incidental notices, (2) in the terms of commission, and (3) in direct statements. (P. 77.)

1. The support of the sons of Aaron from the altar is made the ground of similar ordinance for the gospel minister, (1 Cor. ix. 13.) The evil of separation is evidenced from the destruction of Korah, (S. Jude 11.) The apocalyptic visions represent the worship of the Church by symbols taken from that of the temple. A solemn prayer of blessing and giving of thanks is alluded to, which can scarcely have been anything but that of eucharistic consecration, (1 Cor. xiv. 14.) In Rom. xv. 16, S. Paul gathers together a number of terms of sacrifice in one sentence, (λειτουργός, ἱερουργεῖν, προσφορά, ἡγιασμένη,) so that even Vitringa is forced to make a strained effort in order to evade its application. The feasting upon the LORD's Table is also made analogous to the feasting upon the heathen sacrifice, as if the false worship were in all its idea nothing but a perversion of the Christian Eucharist, (1 Cor. x. 18-21.) Hence we cannot wonder that "the breaking of the Bread" by apostolic hands is so pointedly mentioned in the short notice of the first days after Pentecost. This act was the worship which our LORD Himself enjoined, and we have seen that He instituted it in the language of sacrifice. (Pp. 77-86.)

2. Mr. Carter shows, by a collection of the terms of the apostolic and Aaronic commission, that the two are co-extensive. The sacrifices of the law preceded CHRIST; that of the Church points back to Him. The law possessed the shadow; the Church retains the image, of the celestial truth.

3. There are direct statements, making the Christian priesthood co-extensive in its functions with the priesthood of CHRIST. In the household of CHRIST the minister is 'a steward;' in the kingdom of CHRIST he is an ambassador;' 'a complete representative' in the one case of his Master, and the other place of his King. Was CHRIST sent to be Prophet, Priest, and King? Well then, He says, "As My FATHER hath sent Me, even so send 1 you." Nor were these words limited to the apostles. He accompanied the apostolic commission with the promise, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Pp. 88—93.)

After these considerations there is no conclusion to which we can come, but that the Christian priest is ordained to carry out by delegated ministry the mediation which CHRIST in His own Person instituted and by His pledged Presence sustains. As the twentyfour courses of priests waited around the high priest who went into the holy of holies once every year, so do the elders of the Christian Church exercise on earth a priestly ministration, waiting around, and representing in eucharistic oblation the sacrifice which CHRIST Himself, at once the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and the High Priest over all true priesthoods, is perpetually representing in heaven.

We fear we have marred much of the beauty of Mr. Carter's argument by thus condensing it, with somewhat of re-arrangement, but we trust our readers will have recourse to the book itself, which ought to be in the hands of all who are studying for holy orders, as well as of the clergy themselves. No argument for personal holiness can be so effective as the consideration of the sublimity of the holiness of their office, consecrated thus to extend and apply to their fellow men the Mediation of CHRIST. And again, for selfsacrifice in ministerial energy, there can be to the Christian minister no motive so overwhelming as the remembrance that his daily functions oblige him not merely to tell of the death of CHRIST as a distant and unapproachable act, but also to stand forward and represent on earth that wondrous mystery, acting towards CHRIST'S people "in the Person of CHRIST" Himself, the Priest and Pastor "who laid down His life for the sheep."

So far from the doctrine of a true priesthood being inconsistent with the real spiritual life of the Christian people at large, which we alluded to as a common ground of objection in the beginning of this article, it is the belief in this doctrine which can alone give warrant to the other. The fact of CHRIST's mediation overthrows the pride of the sinner, but it implies the existence of an outward organism by which the sinner can be sanctified and brought near to GOD. The office of the Christian priest exists for no other purpose than to communicate to CHRIST's members the glory of Him, the Head. We often hear the call given in vague words, to "come to JESUS;" but He Himself has pointed out to us how and where

we may come to Him, in that He said to His apostles, "he that receiveth you, receiveth Me; and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me." The trueness of our LORD's representation of the FATHER's Person is made parallel to the trueness of the representation of His own Person by those whom He has sent ; and the glory of the Christian people is, that "God has given such power unto men,"-power so Divinely operative for the outpouring of the HOLY GHOST upon all who have recourse to its ministrations.

PRAYER-BOOK REVISION.

Liturgical Purity our rightful inheritance. By JOHN C. FISHER, M.A., of the Middle Temple. London: Hamilton. Carlisle : Thurnam.

AMONG all the curiosities to which the cry for "Liturgical Reform" has given birth, the book we are about to introduce to our readers is decidedly entitled to take precedence as being unapproachable in its peculiarity. Here is a goodly volume of six hundred and sixty-seven pages, in which every page from end to end partakes to such an extent of the ambiguity evident in the title, that, after careful reading, we are unable to inform our readers whether it is a hoax practised upon the Puritan party; whether the author has taken up the study of the Prayer-Book with the intention of treating it in Puritan fashion, and been driven, nolens volens, as he came to understand it, to recognise its Catholicity; or whether he is an artful traitor to his party, and is fighting the battle of Tractarianism in the Evangelical camp.

If the book is really intended to be a defence of Low Church "views" on the subject of the Prayer-book and its Revision, we can only express our conviction that many who hold them must be very much astonished at the exposition given by the learned gentleman to whom the brief on that side has been entrusted. Imagine an advocate engaged to prove the "rightful inheritance" of certain claimants, going into court, and there conducting their case in such a manner as to show the judge and jury how impossible it is for his clients to have a leg to stand on, unless his lordship will be kind enough to make such alterations in the title-deeds as will destroy the claim of the opposing party. "My lord, and gentlemen of the jury," suppose he were to say, "I have gone thoroughly into this case; there is not a document within reach that I have not overhauled; every inch of the brief put into my hands has had my most deliberate consideration; every word of the evidence brought forward by my clients has been painfully studied by me;

I have also gone into the case as my learned friend on the opposite side will be sure to put it to you; and I have arrived at the conclusion that all he has to advance in support of his clients is essentially right, and that our claim under the present titledeeds is not worth a rush." We doubt if his clients would consider the case much improved if he were to add,—" but, my lord, I am clearly of opinion that as we want to obtain possession of the estate, such changes should be made in the title as will take it out of the hands of its hitherto lawful holders and put it into those of my clients, who feel aggrieved that they have no present right to its possession." Such,-whether the learned author has received a retainer, or has come forward as volunteer advocate,— is exactly the course followed by Mr. Fisher; and we cannot hold out to him the faintest shadow of a hope that he will ever be recognised again as the leading counsel for his present clients.

There are very few of our readers who do not know by experience that such clergy as hold "sacerdotal," or "sacramental" principles have been over and over again twitted with dishonesty, called Jesuits in disguise, declared to practise an evasion of the simple meaning of the Prayer-Book, and Thirty-nine Articles; and recommended to leave a Church with whose formularies their own principles were so much at variance. Mr. Fisher has completely turned the tables: for he shows very conclusively that these aspersed clergy have been right all along in the interpretations which they have given to the Prayer-Book, and that they could not honestly give any other. All he has to say for his friends (upon whom such a conclusion bears, of course, with cruel severity) is that now they have found their own statements of Prayer-Book doctrine are perversions and not the truth, they ought to be enabled to live honestly by having those perverted statements substituted for the formularies hitherto received. "What have you to say, prisoner at the bar, why sentence should not be pronounced upon you ?" "Alas, my lord, it is clear that I did not come honestly by those stolen goods; but it is my most sincére desire to be an honest man, and what I have to say is, that you should annihilate my criminality by declaring that the stolen goods ought to be, and therefore to all intents and purposes shall be, my own property." But the unhappy aspirant after an honest name could not be so easily whitewashed: neither can the Book of Common Prayer quite so easily change hands as Mr. Fisher seems to think.

But, to the book itself, from which, as our readers may not have seen it, we shall make several extracts for the purpose of showing them how firm is our own standing place, in the opinion of a reasonable opponent. The author very correctly says that among all the publications which have issued from the press, during the last few years, urging the alteration of the Prayer-book, none have exceeded the limits of a pamphlet. It is with the intention of

placing the question on a more solid basis than is generally formed by pamphleteering that our author has embarked in the discussion; his own view respecting the changes necessary purporting to go to the extreme of the wishes entertained by the party he professes to represent. The Prayer-Book in Mr. Fisher's opinion "must be made more thoroughly and consistently Protestant-more entirely in accordance with the teaching of Holy Scripture and more in harmony with those so-called Articles of Faith,'" (this accurate lawyer meaning the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion) "which are too commonly regarded as the sole test of Church doctrine, but which are, in reality, far less influential in forming the religious sentiments of the mass of the people, than the constantly recurring services of our weekly Sabbath worship, the frequent catechetical instruction of the young, and the celebration of Ordinances, so pre-eminently solemn and impressive, as those of Baptism and the Supper of the LORD." He does not indeed follow up this proposition as the wonderfully ignorant pamphlet writers on the subject have done, by tearing the Prayer-Book into shreds, and then stitching the dissevered fragments into a patternless patchwork. Such writers make themselves so entirely ridiculous in the eyes of all, that we have nothing to fear from schemes so manifestly destructive; embracing, as they do, such a vast array changes as is sure to raise opposition in every quarter. There is a much greater amount of clear-sightedness in Mr. Fisher's work, and we should be sorry to confound him with Mr. Hildyard and other pamphleteers on the same side, as he is clearly a man who can go down to first principles, however wrong a bias his deductions from them may take. And if Mr. Fisher has given expression-as we think not unlikely to opinions, and a course of proposed action founded on those opinions, which find favour with the Shaftesbury portion of the bench, it is necessary to be warned by the appearance of his book, that a serious attack upon the sacramental principles of the Prayer-Book, of a more decided and sagacious character than any which have hitherto been made, may yet be in store for us. One thing is perfectly clear. The acuter men of the Evangelical party are becoming convinced, at last, that they have not the Prayer-Book on their side.

of

"It has at length become obvious to all unprejudiced minds, that, although the Prayer-Book, as a whole, gives no countenance to the dogmas and pretensions of modern semi-Romanism, there are nevertheless certain portions of it, which are not merely susceptible of abuse in that direction, but which give plain and positive countenance to those fundamental errors whereupon the whole theory of Popish as well as Tractarian' belief is based. This circumstance, while it by no means relieves the Romanizing party from the charge of having employed the phraseology in question for the promotion of unscriptural error, nevertheless places those on the contrary side who are desirous of its altera