to that which is "after the flesh," and to give birth to a system of pastoral discipline and personal behavior in accordance with this fundamental idea.

We would not leave the impression that the knowledge of Christ after the spirit implies any neglect or undervaluation of Divine ordinances. We speak thus, because of the very wide-spread fancy that spirit is the antagonist of form, and that the more spiritual any one becomes, the more independent he is of outward ordinances. In common speech, "spiritual worship" is supposed to be worship separated from all liturgical forms. But the antithesis of spirit is not form, but flesh; and, paradoxical as it may sound, we hesitate not to affirm that the less of form or ordinance there is in a religious system, the more there is of the flesh, because it, of necessity, depends so much the more upon the words and actions of individual men, acting in the power of the flesh. Spiritual worship is worship offered in the power of the Holy Ghost, present in the Church as the second Paraclete. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Christ, is His substitute and vicar, and His work is to take of the things of Christ, and show them to believers. He is subordinate to Christ, and all His actings are through Christ's truth and ordinances, established by His authority; and it is not the spirituality of the Holy Ghost which is seen, when men, breaking away from God's truth, enshrined in His Church and ordinances, supplant and displace it for constructions and imaginations of their own. There may be enthusiasm, excitement, vitality of some sort-what some will mistake for spirituality-but it is the excitement of men's own spirits, and not that of the Spirit of the Living God. Sacraments and ordinances are not mere scaffolding, which may be kicked away when a certain height is reached. They are the forms amid which we are to expatiate, in the heavenly places in Him who is now in "the form of God." And growth in spiritual life, instead of causing weariness of them, only increases the sense of their necessity and the eagerness for their use. To the spiritual man, the infrequent dole of the Bread of Life is not sufficient to satisfy him, nor the church unopened except for harangues or sermons. He longs for the daily bread of heavenly grace, and the regular recurrence of the hour of prayer and meditation; and as he grows in the spiritual life, the desire becomes even more ardent, and the satisfaction more entire. But it is all the more needful that the ordinances by which his life is fed be pure,-free from all fleshly admixture, secure from the intrusion of the old leaven of degenerate humanity.

It has not been for a merely controversial purpose that this

matter has been brought into discussion. It is quite evident that the doctrine held in any portion of the Church, in relation to a Real Presence, has a widely-reaching influence upon the character and form of the religious development and religious life; and we have laid hold of this work under review, for the purpose of showing what are the legitimate results of the doctrine of transubstantiation, logically and consistently carried out. It is from this that the type of religious life which is promoted and cultivated in the Roman Catholic communion is derived. The question, whether Christ is present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, after the manner of a physical or corporeal presence, or present "after a spiritual and heavenly manner," determines the whole course of practical instruction and discipline. In the Roman teaching, it is carried out logically; but the conception of a physical or corporeal presence may be held, without going to the full extent of affirming the withdrawal of the substance of the bread and wine, and the tendency will be relatively the same. It cannot be denied that the tendencies of some of the leading teachers of the party in England and in this country, who are designated as Ritualists, are, at least, equivocal, and in this direction of a corporeal presence; nor that some of the rites and ceremonies which they have introduced, in the celebration of the Holy Communion, seem to favor its carnality.

It is an important question whether the type of religious life which may be distinguished as the Anglican type, as the same has been seen in some of her most saintly members (transfigured, as it may be, and, we trust, is becoming so, by a deeper faith in the supernatural and a freer effusion of the Holy Ghost), shall be retained, or replaced by what we must distinguish as the Roman type. That a decided effort is being made in England, at least, to bring about this change, cannot be doubted. Whoever has visited the headquarters of Ritualism in London-St. Alban's, Holbornsees at once that all the labors of the clergy are directed to forming religious habits and styles of thought in accordance with Romish discipline. All the externals of the Church, as far as the rubrics and arrangements of the English Service Book will allow, and something beyond, are in the same direction, and have the same manifest tendency. Whether Mr. Machonochie and his associates want to carry the English Church bodily to the Papacy, or not, it seems quite evident that they desire to fashion the hearts of the people, to whom they minister, into harmony with the ways of thinking and feeling which are proper to members of the Roman Obedience. The success of their efforts, we fancy, would excite a xcix.-4

smile upon the lips of an intelligent Romanist, who would perceive many elements wanting, both in the process and the result. This, doubtless, is regarded as a desirable consummation, and a step toward the reunion of the Churches. There are not, probably, many who would regard union on such conditions as desirable.

How far this same disposition exists in our own land and Church, we are unable to say. Here and there, we notice attempts to imitate the prototype in Holborn; and, now and then, we meet with some doctrinal utterances which look in the same direction. There is enough of this element to cause much disturbance and uneasiness. If we may venture to suggest, we should say that there might be no more accessible means to quiet agitation than a joint expression by so many of the bishops as could agree about the limit of teaching allowable in this matter. It is impossible to ignore it, or to satisfy the minds of thoughtful Christians by vague generalities, capable of diverse and conflicting interpretations. Something positive and stable should be had, if we can call it forth. There are, of course, two distinct and quite opposite lines of teaching recognized on this question, and, unfortunately, a perfect consense of all the bishops cannot be obtained; but as there are schools and parties recognized, it might tend to quietness and edification if the doctrines of the respective schools and parties were somewhat more clearly and accurately defined.

It is on the same basis, too, that any distinctive principle of ritual can rest. No one is much concerned, nowadays, by any ritual accessories which have no other aim than to render the accepted and regular services of our Church in a manner more worthy of their purpose; but when they are extended to changes in the celebration of the Holy Communion, they become more serious. Considering the high and supreme place which this service holds in Church worship, any additions to it, made by individual priests, without the sanction of the whole Church, seem presumptuous, and almost profane. No man has a right to intrude his mere private judgment into a solemnity so ruling and so sacred. And this is especially the case when the added ceremonies are designed to be symbolical. If they symbolize no more than what was held and taught by our Church heretofore, their introduction is unwarranted; if they symbolize a different doctrine, their tendency is schismatical, and their use impertinent, presuming, and perilous. No bishop, we should suppose, need have any mawkish hesitation as to their suppression; but it would be well that it be done on distinct and intelligible grounds. We do not know, however, where the conservative

authority of the episcopal office can be legitimately exerted, if it be not in the direction of ritual matters which have not been regulated by any accepted precedents or definite law.

We have little space for any remarks upon the third part of the book under review; which, however, requires no special notice. It is entitled "The Practice of Holy Communion," a title which, to us, sounds rather strange. It consists, first, of a historical sketch of the usages of the Church in former times, in respect to frequency of Communion. Upon this we have only to remark that the author gives no countenance to the well-known practice of non-communicating attendance as at all consistent with a true idea of the rite, or sanctioned by primitive usage. This practice sprung out, is his idea, of the defection and failure of the spirit of religion in the hearts of men.1 The other chapters consist of counsels addressed to various classes of Christians, as more or less perfect or imperfect, and contain many passages of great beauty, and of real practical value.

We are willing to infer, from what is said, that frequency in communicating is much increased, of late years, in Roman churches. In this we would fain see an indication that the wave of spiritual life, which has shown its fruits in the great revival of the past forty years in the Church of England and elsewhere, has been a broad tidal wave, which has swept over the face of Christendom, and spread its influence throughout the divided and scattered portions of the Body of Christ. God grant that its power may be increased a hundred-fold, until the Bride of the Lamb shall be fully arrayed in the righteousness of saints, and made ready for her marriage to immortal purity, dignity, and bliss.

1 This is one view. Another is that the Eucharist was commonized by too frequent repetition, and men felt less interest in it. The Church of Rome has a daily Eucharist, but has been obliged to content herself with one communication in a year! Doubtless, there is a medium, if we can be so happy as to hit it.

THE SIXTH GREAT ORIENTAL MONARCHY; or, the Geography, History, and Antiquities of Parthia. Collected and Illustrated from Ancient and Modern sources. By George Rawlinson, M. A., Camden Professor of Ancient History in the University of Oxford, and Canon of Canterbury. One vol., 8vo, pp. 458. London: Longman, Green & Co. New York: Scribner, Welford & Armstrong. 1873.

IT

T seems curious that one of the great ancient monarchies should have been comparatively neglected, until Canon Rawlinson made it a special subject. And the curiosity becomes greater when we find that even such a mind as Gibbon's, whose comprehensiveness was a matter of stately pride, should have fallen into the beaten track of misapprehension, and left Parthia as if an inconsiderable or half-forgotten topic. We remember it as one of Gibbon's pet boasts, that he had rather be wrong alone, than right with the vulgar multitude. And the propensity on which it was founded, made him a sad sceptic about religion. The wonder, therefore, is all the greater, that, in his peculiar department of history, he should not have carried out his favorite pretension. Yet Mr. Rawlinson is careful to tell us. that he has not, and that the author of the celebrated "Decline and Fall" has proved himself, in reference to a kingdom once the antagonist, and the stout antagonist, of Rome, as dull of perception as a phalanx of acknowledged inferiors.

Gibbon "enlarges on the idea,-an idea quite inconsistent with