and not having afterwards committed wilful sin, have their life given in Baptism still fresh, and so do not yet need the renewal of it in the LORD's Supper. Besides, this is not the food of infants, but is as strong meat to renew decay, and support in hard labours; and therefore, also, is not necessary to children."-Pp. 401, 402.

2. The second consists in giving a reference to a passage in Holy Scripture, to prove a statement which it in no way bears out. The statement is, that Absolution may be " over many persons assembled in one place," (p. 230,) i.e., he argues it is given by the General Absolution in the Daily Office, and the reference is to S. Luke x. 5, 6. But this is a form of benediction ("Peace be to this house,") which the Church always gives "generally," and not of Absolution, which is always particular, "Thy sins be forgiven thee."

3. Another is simply a critical error, on which the writer admits that nothing depends-an error nevertheless we take it to be, to say that the preposition "in" does not reach in the Creed to the words, "The Holy Catholic Church," &c.

4. A passage in the Catechism, that is treated as unsatisfactorily as any, is the "Descent into Hell," although the intermediate state, and its division into receptacles for the righteous and the wicked, is unmistakeably affirmed. Here, in the first place, we have a most extraordinary interpretation of our LORD's words, "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

"Into this place all souls go, both good and bad; and it is so peopled by them that it is called a city with gates; which will never overpower the Church, whereof some will always be alive,1 but does wholly overpower many cities, by receiving all their people into it at death." P. 151.

In this place the reader will notice two applications besides the one already specified, which are wholly without authority, and beside the mark.

Secondly, surely it is a bad piece of reasoning, that because the Psalmist's words "Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell," did not imply that David's soul went into the place of torment, therefore they are inconsistent with our LORD having descended thither for the purpose of intensifying the conviction of remorse in the wicked. It is bad for this reason, because it is a principle admitted in all interpretation of Scripture, that no Type is adequate to show forth all that was embodied in the great Antitype.

Once more, in the exposition of the well-known passage, in which S. Peter speaks of our LORD preaching to "the spirits in prison," Mr. Pagan (as of course he has authority for doing, though we think the best authorities are against him,) understands the Apostle to mean, that Noah preached "by," i.e., under the influ

1 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.

2 S. Matth. xi. 23.

ence of the HOLY "SPIRIT." We do not, therefore, find fault with Mr. Pagan for following, or seeming to follow S. Augustine. But the reader we think will agree with us, that the whole argument is weak and fanciful.

Hence, when it is said that CHRIST, though put to death in the flesh, was quickened in, or by, Spirit, by which He went and preached, i. e., proclaimed, to the spirits in prison, we are not to suppose that He did this by His human soul, and after death. For then His Soul, or Spirit, would here be said to be quickened, which cannot be; since this word is applied only to bodies dead, or souls dead in sin, or where death is supposed to have once been. Moreover, these spirits are described as having been disobedient, and, therefore, were such as long as they lived; and as being in prison, which implies punishment and pain; and therefore they are the spirits of evil men, and as such cannot now be freed by Him. Besides, as these men were called giants, the expressions, the dead,' or 'congregation of the dead,' i. e., the wicked who die, in the Book of Proverbs, mean, the giants; and since the whole world of wicked departed spirits is thus named from these, it is not likely that they were then singled out for mercy from many who had had less opportunities of knowing the truth. Hence, by S. Peter's words, we are to understand rather, that the Body of CHRIST, though dead, was quickened by His Divine Spirit, or else by the HOLY SPIRIT; and that by that Spirit He had in the days of Noah, and by him preached to men now in prison. For though the word Spirit (ver. 18) has not the article T (the,) or the preposition év (in or by,) yet as the human spirit is used sometimes without the article, but with the preposition, or without both, so the HOLY SPIRIT, when His works are spoken of, is used sometimes without the article, but with a preposition, and sometimes without either, even when contrasted with the body or flesh, and may therefore be so here. Further, since this Spirit is said to have striven with man, i. e., these giants; and Noah is also said to have been a preacher, i. e., a proclaimer, of righteousness; and since CHRIST is not said to have preached the Gospel, but only to have preached, i. e., proclaimed, it may be, repentance or righteousness, it seems more reasonable to suppose that this preaching was by the HOLY SPIRIT formerly in the days of Noah; and that S. Peter brings it in to show how by the Spirit men are now brought to Baptism. Nor is this interpretation weakened because it is said soon after, that 'the Gospel' was preached to men dead. For dead here means, men who, though living on the earth, were dead in sin; and the Gospel was preached to them in order that, though judged, i. e., condemned, by men in the flesh, i. e., by wicked men, they might live unto God in and by the Spirit."-Pp. 154-156.

5. We shall only notice one other subject, which, like the others referred to, no doubt is a difficult and crucial passage for a commentator. But here we do not so much refer to the misinterpretation of the word "Faithful," (which just shows that the author is ignorant of the ordinary scholastic distinction between the Sa

crament and the "res" and "virtus" of the Sacrament,) as to the singularly inconsequential reasoning that runs through the whole argument, after the first paragraph, which it will be seen affirms nevertheless the doctrine of the Real Presence.

"Hence we say that in the LORD's Supper the Body and Blood of CHRIST are taken and received 'verily,' i. e., truly or certainly; and 'indeed,' i. e., in reality, and not in a figure; for whatever figure there be in the Elements, there is none in the receiving; but it is a true and real receiving, though after a spiritual and heavenly manner; since without a real receiving, we could not have the life which is promised in the Sacrament. How we receive, however, we know not, neither should we stay to inquire; it being sufficient for us that, by the SAVIOUR'S Almighty power, we do partake of, and are united to Him.

66

But, though the Sacrament be thus a Communion with Him, yet it is so only to those who receive it with suitable dispositions, and fulfil certain conditions. For, as to believe, or have faith, and to love GOD are necessary in religious services generally, in order to receive GOD's special gifts of grace, so that without them He does not act even by His appointed means; and as in the other Sacrament faith and repentance are necessary in order to regeneration, or the inward grace; so we reasonably conclude that in the LORD's Supper true and obedient believers only partake of and receive the blessed Body and Blood of CHRIST, under, or by means of, the form, i.e., the outward sign, of bread and wine. Hence, we say that the Body and Blood of CHRIST ' are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the LORD'S Supper,' i.e., by true believers: for the word faithful has but two meanings, viz., either the whole Church, as in both the Old and New Testaments; or those who are true believers, as distinct from the general congregation, or the upright, whether spoken of one or more perand since it cannot here mean the whole Church, including unconfirmed persons and non-communicants, it must mean those who are true believers; as it also does in the Collect for Whitsun-Day, and in other Collects.

sons;

Therefore, wicked Christians, who have not true faith or love, independent of any injury to them in receiving the heavenly Body of CHRIST, if they could, cannot properly receive it at all; even as a man, having a will in his hand by which a property is left to him on certain conditions, cannot receive it if he does not perform the conditions; or an animal, having food before it not suited to its nature, cannot eat it at all. Again, all who eat CHRIST'S Body are in union with Him, and have life; and if eating, i. e., continuing to eat, have eternal life. Whereas, wicked persons, because they discern not the LORD's Body, i.e., distinguish it not from common food, and so, from want of faith and love, approach it unbecomingly, although they eat the LORD's Body outwardly, i. e., the outward Signs, not only die, as many of the Israelites did, who were fed by manna, the figure of CHRIST, but also eat damnation to themselves, and therefore cannot then be said truly to eat His Body: although, as the eating damnation means only for the present, or until they repent, so they may afterwards receive that Body; in other words, the inward grace, as in Baptism, is with them only de

layed, and not as yet separated from the outward Sign. Further, all such, because they partake of the outward Signs, which represent, and are closely united to the blessed Body and Blood, and so are called by that name, are in eating guilty of the Body and Blood, i. e., behave unseemly towards them, and, as guilty persons, are liable to punishment on account of them; even as those were punished who profaned but the holy things under the Law."-Pp. 450-452.

Upon the whole Mr. Pagan's volume, though useful to many Parish Priests and Schoolmasters, will not make any one a theologian.

The fact is, that Mr. Pagan has not really apprehended the doctrine of the Incarnation, or at least that portion of it which consists in our LORD's session at the right hand of the FATHER, and this doctrine is the key to all theology. Now when Mr. Pagan treats of the LORD'S Ascension into heaven, with all his numerous quotations from Scripture, he makes no reference to any of those statements in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which speak of CHRIST having ascended to be the "High Priest of our Profession." He is called King, and Advocate, and Intercessor, but there is no mention at all of His Priestly character or of the sacrifice which He is continually presenting to the FATHER. The threefold function of Prophet, Priest, and King, is once, and once only, alluded to; but neither of the two former offices are at all explained, neither is it anywhere shown how CHRIST discharges these offices through an earthly priesthood, to whom He has delegated their exercise. This is the great defect of his theological system, and it is visible in every part of his otherwise valuable treatise.

DE BUNSEN'S KEYS OF S. PETER.

The Keys of S. Peter; or, the House of Rechab connected with the History of Symbolism and Idolatry. By ERNEST DE BUNSEN. London: Longmans. 1867.

Ir is a very singular phenomenon that a revival of the primitive faith, which is going on so happily amongst us, should be accompanied by an attempt to revive the errors or heresies that the primitive Church had to contend with: we mean Gnosticism, in the form that S. John and S. Paul condemned it; and still more fully, S. Irenæus, and S. Clement of Alexandria. Yet so it is; and Mr. Ernest De Bunsen is the Coryphæus of the Gnostic system, that powerful opponent of the Catholic Faith in the first three centuries. Yet, perhaps, it is, after all, not very strange that it should be so. Perhaps we can account for it if we contrast

the principles of Gnosticism with the great central truth of Christendom. Gnosticism connotes a special knowledge of Divine Truth; a knowledge secretly revealed, secretly held, secretly taught, that is, only to the initiated. It asserts that the possession of this knowledge is the highest attainment to which man can aspire; it is the only means by which the rewards of the future life can be secured. We need hardly point out that the Catholic idea is wholly different from this: it sets forth GoD Incarnate as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and makes the spiritual renewing of man, soul and body, and not mere knowledge, to be the only qualification for eternal life. When, therefore, the Church revived, as she has done in our day, the teaching of this great central doctrine, and brought out so prominently, as she has done, the Incarnation, with its attendant sacramental system, it is only in accordance with experience to expect that its opposite should appear. "When the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also." There is, both in the kingdom of nature and in that of grace, an antagonism, that, when any particular truth is brought out to its proper position and importance, then there immediately arises its antagonistic error: the tree of knowledge stood next to the tree of life in the midst of the garden.

It is remarkable how S. John, in warning the Christians of his day against the Gnostic teachers, has left us a test whereby we may try their orthodoxy, or prove their heresy: " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of GOD; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of GOD: every spirit that confesseth that JESUS CHRIST is come in the flesh, is of GOD; and every spirit that confesseth not that JESUS CHRIST is come in the flesh, is not of GOD." Here we have the belief in the Incarnation laid down as the one great test to distinguish Gnosticism from the Catholic Faith. The one is a spiritual system, a system of atonement, and consequent renewing of fallen man, by gradual sanctification of all his various powers, both of soul and body; the other an intellectual system, which sets up and substitutes knowledge for grace, and makes intellectual progression the way of salvation.

The " Keys of S. Peter" is the second work which Mr. De Bunsen has published, enunciating this Gnostic system. The former one, the "Hidden Wisdom of CHRIST," we noticed as soon as it appeared; the present volume is a continuation and an enlargement of the ideas enounced in the former, together with a new theory about the Kenites and Rechabites. In the "Hidden Wisdom" we were told that Cain and Abel were not two sons of Adam, the first man, as the Bible tells us; but the whole account is a mere figurative expression to describe "the separation of the Aryan brothers. The first biblical account about the human family 1 See Ecclesiastic, vol. xxvii. p. 258.