S. Clement is true of other passages from the same writer; is true of the whole Catena Patrum, of each of its several links, and of the subordinate quotations which compose those links. A goodly number of citations from the Fathers are collected in Mr. Harrison's Catena; the only objection against them being that they are out of place in his volume; that they do not bear upon the matter in hand-that they do not in one single case support the hypothesis which Mr. Harrison seeks to establish upon them; they are all very good and excellent quotations, but they are beside the mark. The late learned Professor Blunt, a most exact and careful student of the Fathers, makes a comment upon this very passage from the Stromata which Mr. Harrison has here noticed. "That we have clear proof," he says, "there is no arguing that the Fathers confound the Bishop and Presbyter, because they occasionally include both under the latter name; for I look upon it as shown to a demonstration, that Clemens drew a positive distinction between the Bishop and Presbyter, and yet we shall find him in another place, when discanting on the nature of the service which the true Gnostic renders to GOD, dividing all service into the emendatory and the ministerial, and having illustrated the division in some other ways, he goes on to say, 'in like manner with respect to the Church, the Presbyters maintain the emendatory character, the deacons the ministerial,' (Strom. vii. p. 700,) as though these were the only two orders in the Church; whereas the truth evidently is from what has already transpired, that he must have included the Bishop in the Presbyter." In the Pædagogue there is another passage bearing on this same subject which Mr. Harrison has not thought it worth while to cite. It has a twofold importance: for, firstly, its own testimony is explicit; and secondly, it has received a just comment from the pen of Professor Blunt. Speaking of the Holy Scriptures, he writes, that there are maxims in the sacred books relating to particular persons, written, some for Presbyters, others for Bishops, others for deacons, and others for widows. The comment runs thus: "It will be seen at once that Clemens, when he penned these words, had no idea of proving to posterity that there were three orders in the Church; it is not the point his mind was adverting to; his object simply was to put into the mouth of his Pædagogue, a characteristic speech, namely, that he would not meddle with matters which belonged rather to the head-master's task, to whom he was about to turn over his young charge. At the same time, that when he used the terms Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, he used them distinctively, as representing the several grades of the hierarchy, is evident from the turn of the passage itself, which asserts that the Scriptures contained precepts calculated for the guidance of different persons whose duties were different, each adapted to each, αἱ μὲν (sc. ὑποθῆκαι) πρεσβυτέροις, αἱ δὲ ἐπισκόποις, αἱ δὲ διακόνοις. As though each order had its own

work." Professor Blunt elsewhere remarks upon the "informal" and "oblique" notices upon ecclesiastical matters, which are to be found in S. Clement, yet such notices evidently bespeak "that the author was living in an Episcopal Church and consequently had his casual thoughts occasionally tinged by the subject, as they might be by any other, which was habitually present before him, but nothing more."

We must now leave this curious book. Not that we have for a moment silenced its author; for when we have proved that our Father lived under and supported an Episcopal Church, we have to prove much more than we have space to do, in order to satisfy him; to prove that he held Apostolical succession in the same value that S. Irenæus did. And this also we could do if needs be. The least Ecclesiastical of the Fathers bears witness against Mr. Harrison; his own witnesses condemn him. His attempt to prove that the Fathers do not teach the Episcopal government of the Church, and the doctrine of Apostolical succession is a most miserable failure. His every proposition could be refuted, and its weakness exposed. Setting aside his theology and his grasp of divine truth, we think that Mr. Harrison is deserving of great credit for the lucid arrangement of his book. It is well and carefully put together; the Catenæ applying clearly to and explaining the text. The selections from the Fathers are, on the whole, fairer than the second Catena, which consists of selections from the Anglican divines from the latter half of the sixteenth century. We sympathize with Mr. Harrison in long work and literary labour, and he and his sect may justly take some pride in the book. We regret being obliged, in common justice and truth, to speak so plainly as we have done about its theological merit. Mr. Harrison has laboured much; we only wish that it had been in a better cause, with truth on his side. There never was, there is not, there never will be, any doubt as to the Fathers-whose they are. They are the undisputed heritage of the Catholic Church; they witnessed to her doctrines; in many cases they died for her faith; they declared the unity of that one Church, out of which there is no salvation; and they believed and ever taught, that the Church derived her life-giving power, her streams of sacramental grace from the unbroken succession of her priesthood. A Christian community, with a broken succession was, as a branch broken off from the parent tree, which in time would wither, whose end was to be burned.

216

SADLER'S EMMANUEL.

Emmanuel, or the Incarnation of the Son of God the foundation of Immutable Truth. By the Rev. M. F. SADLER, M.A. London, Bell and Daldy, 1867.

THE publication of Wilberforce's "Incarnation," Incarnation," some twenty years ago, may be said to have changed the whole character of theological teaching in this country. Before that time, or rather before the clergy had studied that work, the one great dogma was "justification by faith" a man's soundness was gauged by his views on this doctrine. Some preachers thought, and acted on the thought, that the sole purpose of a sermon was to unfold this doctrine; others, not going quite so far, maintained that every sermon should, at least, have a brief statement of this doctrine. A man was said to know "the truth" who could clearly state the doctrine, as enunciated by Luther. Newman's celebrated lectures on "Justification" gave the first rude shock to the popular system, but it was not until the "Doctrine of the Incarnation" was elaborated by Wilberforce, that the Lutheran dogma gave way to catholic doctrine. The two systems are not only diverse from each other, but absolutely opposed. The one is a carefully drawn theological system, perfect on paper, to be apprehended by the mind, and quickened by the feelings; but it was essentially external to the individual himself; it was wholly a trust in something done by Another, merely apprehended by believing in it. The first principle laid down being our utter inability to do anything for ourselves, and our entire dependence on what Another had done for us. It was a system of Christianity. On the other hand, the catholic teaching of the Incarnation brought forward a Living Person, GoD Incarnate, not as merely one to be believed in, but as the living, moving Being, by whom salvation is wrought out in us, and by us. Under the former system, the Sacraments, and even the Church itself, had a very subsidiary place, they were not agents in the work of salvation, only accompaniments. In the latter, they are the very means whereby we are united to that Being, Who is our salvation. In a word, one was a theological system, apprehended intellectually, the other a system of grace and co-operation with a Person, Who is salvation. The book before us is an exposition of the catholic doctrine of the Incarnation, and its relation to us. It differs very considerably in its plan from Wilberforce's work, chiefly, of course, from its being written to meet the statements of a new class of opponents. Among the latter there are not only such works as Rénan's, but there is the school of "Christianity," as represented by the writers of the "Essays and Reviews," especially Mr. Jowett;

a system, whose creed is the non-necessity of a Creed, whose dogma is the renunciation of catholic dogma. Now, as these various phases of misbelief appear, it becomes necessary to restate the truth, laying stress especially on those parts which are questioned, or which bear upon the opposite. This is apparently the cause of the writing of this work. The author commences by laying down that

"The Incarnation is the first article of the mystery of Godliness. The New Testament opens with it, and the apprehension of it by each member of the Church must of necessity be prior to his right conception of every other truth of GOD. The atonement wrought out by the SON of GOD, His everlasting Priesthood, His headship over the Church, and His future judgment, all depend on the truth of His Holy Incarnation. "His Incarnation is the only foundation which can bear such a superstructure.”—P. 1.

Those who are acquainted with Mr. Sadler's former works will be prepared to find that his strong point, or rather the most striking feature in this work, is his bringing of scripture to support his arguments; or perhaps we may describe the process better by saying that he allows scripture to speak for itself on all points where the catholic faith is questioned. It is not one or two well-known and oft-quoted texts that he brings; but he moves, if we may so speak, masses of well-arranged scripture to meet the attack on any disputed point. Nothing can be more convincing than such a mode of defence; for, generally speaking, the attack is feebly supported by wresting or misapprehending one or two passages of scripture, and overlooking, or disregarding the rest. Against this often plausible appearance, Mr. Sadler brings down a number of other passages, which cannot, by any reasoning, be made to support the new interpretation; showing, consequently, by this appeal to scripture, that this new interpretation is as much opposed to the plain word of scripture, as it is to all catholic teaching. For example:

"Such is the direct and unmistakeable teaching of this Epistle, (Romans) broadly and repeatedly stated in such plain language, that if we do not accept it we must perforce believe that the most purely didactic book in the New Testament gives us a false view of the whole theory of salvation from sin. Consider such statements as- By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin and so death passed upon all men, for that all sinned.' 'Through the offence of one, the many (oi oloi) are dead.' 'By one man's offence death reigned by one.' 'By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.' By one man's disobedience the many were made sinners.' Such is the direct teaching-the indirect is precisely similar. Both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin.' 'All have sinned and come short of the glory of GoD.' 'Ye were the servants of sin.' 'In me, that is, in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing.' 'I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind.'

"Such are the apostolic statements respecting human sin, its origin, and its universality. Well, this epistle is mainly occupied with the fact that this JESUS Emmanuel was such an one, or had that in Him, which enabled Him to be the counterpart to Adam; so that as 'by (Adam's) one offence judgment came upon all men to condemnation, so by the righteousness of one (the second Adam) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.' As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (CHRIST) shall many be made righteous.' Or in the words of another epistle, 'as in Adam all die, even so in CHRIST shall all be made alive.'

"Now let the unbeliever raise himself, if he can, to the 'stand-point' of this great teacher of righteousness, and tell us how one human being, Who came into the world four thousand years after it had been peopled with myriads born in Adam's sin, should yet be able to undo this condemnation of all His brethren. Adam's one sin naturally affected all his posterity, for it was poison infused at the spring-head-it was a canker tainting the root of the tree; but how could one small Branch of this tree, cut off in death before one other branch had sprung from it, become in an instant, as it were, a new root of salvation for the whole tree of human life?

"What nature could so diffuse remedial grace except the nature of Him who was conceived by the HOLY GHOST, born of the Virgin Mary-JESUS Emmanuel? If GOD did actually send His own SON in the likeness of sinful flesh, then there is no difficulty about the matter, for the results indicated in this epistle are results proportionate to such an interposition on the part of the Divine Being."-Pp. 18-20.

In congruity with the above we have an argument from the teaching of the Old Testament; the impossibility of any one less than the Incarnate Son of GOD accomplishing the prescribed work, and the still greater impossibility of any one, but the CHRIST, revealed in the New Testament, being able to fulfil its require

ments.

Suppose, I say, that we were wrong in this, how must matters stand respecting GOD and CHRIST, and the Scriptures and the Church? "Why, evidently thus:

"We have first to believe that the JEHOVAH of the Old Testament gave a revelation to a particular people-that this revelation had for its creed one article, His own unity-that He guarded the practical holding of this article with the most tremendous sanctions, declaring that as long as they held this article He would be their one only SAVIOUR, Shepherd, King, and Redeemer, and that if they let it go He would be their enemy.

"In addition to all this we have to believe that this JEHOVAH leads His chosen people to expect a fuller and final revelation in the Person and teaching of a Messiah or CHRIST whom He would send.

He

"Well, this Messiah or CHRIST does in due time actually come. is cut off early in life, so that the promulgation of His teaching, i.e., of the final and perfect revelation of God's will, is left to others; especially to four persons called Evangelists, who give accounts of His birth, life,