certain, for the Apostle himself tells us so. And S. Peter alludes to some grievous errors, both of life and doctrine, which had come in in consequence of a perversion of some part of S. Paul's teaching-and what part if not this? So it seems certain that there was an error among the early converts on this point-an error of an antinomian tendency-to be corrected. The passage in S. James is exactly worded so as to correct it. The inference drawn is, that it was intended to correct it: and a very natural inference it appears to be. But Mr. Stanley's theory of this epistle obliges him to oppose this explanation of the passage, because his theory addresses the Epistle to a body over-biassed in favour of the law, rather than against it, and therefore not at all needing to be warned against such an error-a body, viz. half of actual Jews, half of Jewishly prejudiced converts. He accordingly argues against it, thus :-' Still less is it, [the passage in 'S. James,] as some have imagined, a correction of S. Paul. It would ' surely be against the whole order of progress so manifest in the revelation ' of Christianity, if we could suppose that the more perfect statement of 'Christian truth in S. Paul should be intended to receive its completion ' from the less perfect statement in S. James.' Now with respect to this argument, it appears enough to say first, that though S. James's doctrine was not, as no one ever asserted it was, a correction of S. Paul's, it may have been a correction of other persons' perversion of S. Paul's: and secondly, that whether S. Paul's is a more perfect statement of truth than S. James', or S. James' than S. Paul's, or whether both are equal, there can be no reason why S. Paul's statement should not have been added to by S. James. Mr. Stanley seems to object to S. Paul's statement 'receiving its completion in S. James,' because, a subsequent addition appearing to him to be necessarily the higher and more finishing part of a doctrine, he cannot consent to put S. Paul lower than S. James. But a subsequent addition does not involve any such consequence as this: an addition may be an addition and nothing more: it need not be higher, and it need not be lower, than that which it is added to. Mr. Stanley's argument against the common explanation of the passage in S. James, continues- It would be precluded ' by the nature of the circumstances under which the Epistle was written. 'So far from its readers being likely to have fallen into an exaggerated zeal 'for S. Paul's assertion that, " a man is justified by faith without the deeds ' of the law," it is probable that they had never heard of it at all, or if they 'had, would have rejected it with scorn. It was, as we have seen, a far ' different teaching which they needed.' That is to say, Mr. Stanley refers us back to his own hypothesis, with respect to this Epistle, as a whole, for the disproof of the commonly received explanation of this particular portion of it. He first supposes a particular class of religionists which this Epistle addresses, and then says that such a construction of a passage is not a true one, because it was not adapted to this particular class. He makes his hypothesis prove its own results, and rejects any opposite results on the ground of inconsistency with such hypothesis.

And now to proceed from Mr. Stanley's refutation of the received explanation of this passage, to the assertion of his own. S. James, he says, is here correcting, not the licentious faith of the mistaken Christian, but the barren faith of the formalist Jew. But surely, on Mr. Stanley's own showing, the Jewish mind was just the mind which did not require this correction from S. James. It had no exaggerated estimate of faith, as compared with works, to be reproved. The formalist Jew was only too extreme in his view of justification by works already, and therefore why should S. James be so particular in pressing that view upon him, as if he denied or neglected it? Mr. Stanley's own argument has undercut his own explanation, before he gives it us. If, in reply, he proceeds to discover a particular aspect in which the Jew may be contemplated as holding just the contrary error, and thinking more of faith and less of works than he ought; if, he says, this false faith showed itself in a desperate trust in their 'privileges as the people of God, like the Mahometan belief that death in 'battle for the faithful is a passport to heaven,' &c. All that need be asked is, is this the aspect in which the Jew is put before us in the New Testament? In the controversy on faith and works, is the Jew represented as taking the side of faith, or taking the side of works? If he is represented as on the latter side, however Mr. Stanley may, by means of some peculiar aspect of his own, contemplate him as taking the former, it is evident the Jew must be taken as the New Testament exhibits him. And being on the side of works, S. James's remonstrance, which charges them whom it addresses with thinking too exclusively of faith, is hardly applicable to him.

Thus Jewish a character, and thus Jewish an audience, does Mr. Stanley give to S. James's teaching in this Epistle. He seems to agree, however, with Luther, in thinking that there are in it many good sentences;' and to regard the teaching as, though not of the highest kind, very solid and useful. It is not without its use to have a proof that the ordinary "rules ' of familiar" intercourse, of words, &c. were not thought beneath the ' notice of the earliest address to the Christian Church, It may be instructive to see the national and social duties,' &c. &c. But we must gravely ask, could Mr. Stanley have properly weighed and considered the whole of the Epistle of S. James, before he selected the line of apology which he has in one part of his Sermon? Could he have weighed and considered such texts as 'Let patience have her perfect work:--The trial of your 'faith worketh patience:-If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, 'who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; but let him ask, ' in faith, nothing wavering:-Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights :-Of His own will begot he us with the word of truth :-Receive with meekness the en'grafted word, which is able to save your souls :- Visit the fatherless and ' widows in their affliction, and keep himself unspotted from the world:Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, with respect to persons:- Whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in one 'point, he is guilty of all :- Who is a wise man, endued with knowledge ' among you, let him shew out of a good conversation his works with 'meekness of wisdom: -The wisdom which is from above is first pure, then peaceable, &c. :-God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the ، humble :-Submit yourselves to God:-Draw nigh to God, and He will • draw nigh to you:-Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He 'shall lift you up:-Be patient, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord;

stablish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh:-Is any ' afflicted? let him pray; is any merry? let him sing psalms:-The prayer ' of faith shall heal the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he 'have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him:-Confess your faults ' one to another, and pray one to another, that ye may be healed:-The ⚫ effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much :'-Could Mr. Stanley have really weighed these texts before he penned the following apology for S. James's Epistle.

How often are we obliged to acknowledge the great usefulness of books 'which are yet without the tone and feeling which we ordinarily expect 'from religious men? How often have we heard of persons, who having 'been by circumstances separated from the religious world, with hardly ' even a religious expression on their lips, have yet been so earnestly ' employed in works of honesty or justice or benevolence, that we cannot 'but think of them as having been engaged in the service of God! It is ' in contemplating such cases as these that the Epistle of S. James may be 'considered as most useful, both as a warning and an encouragement. It ' teaches us not to condemn at once those whose life and teaching is formed ' on the model which God has been pleased to set before us in the life and teaching of S. James.'

The apology continues in much the same tone, Undoubtedly, its [the 'Epistle's] one pervading characteristic is, that its whole object is entirely 'moral: that the same energy of language, the same authoritative tone, ' which in other parts of the New Testament are used to inculcate what we strictly call religious truths, are here used to insist upon those plain matters of right and wrong, of vice and virtue, which, strictly speaking, ' are hardly called religious at all.'

6

Will Mr. Stanley seriously say that perfect patience, unwavering faith, undoubting prayer, receiving with meekness the engrafted word, remembering that we are begotten with the word of truth, rigid government of the tongue, visiting the fatherless and widows, keeping ourselves unspotted from the world, seeking the wisdom which is from above, exhibiting it with meekness, submitting ourselves to God, drawing nigh to God, humbling ourselves in the sight of God, waiting for the coming of the Lord, praying in affliction, praising in joy, confessing our sins one to another, interceding in prayer for one another-are 'such plain matters of right and wrong, of vice and virtue, as strictly speaking we hardly call religious at all!'

We shall conclude with two brief remarks. One is, that however sincerely Mr. Stanley may vindicate for the Epistle of S. James its place in the canon, we cannot but consider his view of the Epistle, as a modification of the view of one who displaced it we allude of course to Luther. Another is, that if the teaching of S. James is considered Jewish; what is our Lord's teaching to be considered? And what epithet are we to apply to the Sermon on the Mount? For Mr. Stanley acknowledges that S. James faithfully reflects our Lord's teaching; that he writes 'in the true ' spirit of that Divine discourse in S. Matthew's Gospel, which is the true ' model of his whole teaching;' and 'preserves almost verbally the traces ' of the teaching of his Divine Master.'

১

Mr. Allies' second edition of 'The Church of England Cleared from the Charge of Schism,' is, in fact, a new work. It has grown from 300 pages to 500. It is a theological treatise, instead of a pamphlet. The powerful, though, from the circumstances of the case, hasty and incomplete argument of a defensive essay, written to meet the immediate claims of controversy, has been matured, expanded, and elaborated, into a systematic inquiry into the patristic idea of the Roman Bishop. Apart from its temporary and controversial interest, it now claims an important place in English theological literature, as perhaps the fairest, the most thoughtful, and most exact exposition, that has yet been given of the sentiment of the early Church and its Doctors on a most momentous point of ecclesiastical polity. The substance of the former edition is incorporated in the present; but the argument is exhibited with greater method and clearness; important points which before were only touched on, are brought out with due force and prominence; and much that is actually new, added, such as the discussion of the causes which changed the primacy into a monarchy-the link connecting the modern with the ancient view of Rome. With respect to the early times, no significant fact, no important saying, no recorded opinion or line of action of fathers and councils, but receives full examination. In point of form, this edition is a great improvement on the first, as it is fully provided with those extremely important aids to a book's usefulness-carefully divided chapters and sections, a good analytical table of contents, running titles, and marginal summaries. Into the argument itself we have already entered at length in a former number; we have only now to add, that the book is unanswered; for to state a countertheory is not to answer. But this writer does indicate the real nature of the Roman ground-which is, not to deny that advantage was taken of circumstances to alter the place of the Roman Pontiff in the Church, but, that the place claimed by the Pope is necessary in the West, and therefore of Divine right in the whole Church. On the principle, not unknown indeed even to the historical controversialists of the days of Trent, that the apparent necessity of the case implies a Divine sanction, and not on antiquity, rests really the Roman case; however they may argue, this is what they reason on. And it is for them to see to it, whether, as Mr. Allies puts it, 'a divine right can be constructed out of a series of successful encroachments,' however those encroachments are explained.

We find that a localized Cambridge Architectural Society has been formed. Their first formal production is before us in 'The Arrangement of Parish Churches considered;' (Meadows.) Besides this, an Architectural and Archæological Society for the county of Berks is in the field. As usual, these new bodies are surprisingly active ;-their secretaries compose for them new 'manuals of Gothic architecture;' and enthusiastic members rub, classify, exhibit and present 'brasses.' That the aspect of bustle which the proceedings of the first organizers of a Society exhibit has been in many instances, and may be again, the prelude, (necessary perhaps in these days,) to real work, is certain. May it be so in these cases ! But some reflections are pressed upon us by the formation of so many of these Societies, which we may as well lay before our readers. First, what good may be expected from them? Doubtless the one or two active men, who must be the nucleus of every such attempt, have a sincere desire to spread information, and to excite a proper feeling as to the building of new churches or the repairing of old. So far as they succeed in doing this, they do good. To our disgrace it must be still owned, that many of our ancient churches are in a state of shocking profanation; and that many of our new ones do not deserve the name. New local Societies do at least stir up people's minds on these subjects. Without a doubt, all round Aylesbury pews will here and there begin to lose their locks, then their doors, then get lowered, finally disappear: altars will be rescued from being hat-stands, kept clean, mended, and before long restored, raised, railed in, and regarded as sacred. Fonts will be brought again into use, their drains cleaned, plugs provided and covers carved; and so on. And when a new church shall be wanted, neighbouring incumbents will talk scientifically of styles, and take sides about architects; the Bucks Archæological Committee will sit in judgment on the plans; and the building will come out with sacrarium and sedilia, stone pulpit and stalls-the admiration of the county paper, engraved in the Illustrated London News, described at large in the Builder, and, probably, snubbed in the Ecclesiologist. Good results all these. What, however, is the other side of the picture? It is the danger of a little knowledge.' If Christian Architecture is a science, it is not to be acquired by a royal road, but by earnest work and patience. Nor is it now possible-as eight years ago it was necessary -for learners to enter upon the study as upon a voyage of discovery. There is now a great deal of knowledge already acquired and systematised, which must be learnt before further discovery can be made. We think it an unpromising sign, then, when new Societies-as in some brochures that we have seen-appear to desire to have the credit of laying down independently and originally the rudiments of the science. Of course it would be most commendable to test every step by personal examination of ancient buildings. It was only by legitimate induction from a host of facts, collected with the greatest diligence and digested with much thought, that the principles of ecclesiology were laid down as we now have them by the earlier Societies; a similar course must be pursued by all who wish to equal them, not to say outstrip them. We do think, therefore, that persons ought to approach these studies in the spirit of learners, and should avoid anything like presumption while their knowledge is yet crude and shallow. The cases are already far too numerous, in which designs for new churches have been much impaired by the interference of self-constituted judges, and restorations effected, without competent knowledge, in the most unsatisfactory way. We only abstain from giving examples from a wish not to be invidious. The best way of avoiding such mistakes would surely be for the smaller Societies to consider themselves as merely associated for mutual instruction and study, rather than as qualified, by virtue of their yearly subscription, to be judges of taste and art.

And this leads us to speak of the older Societies, and of our regret that some plan for making them work more in concert has not yet been hit upon. It is a subject to which we have already called attention. The progress of the science is retarded until some better organization shall become effective. In the meantime each of the more important bodies seems to us to require a word of counsel. The Ecclesiological, or Cambridge Camden, Society keeps its