growing and assimilating processes of conviction. And, as they are repeated with similar results, tending perpetually to bring the individual mind into unison with the universal spirit and thought of the Holy Catholic Church through all time, a sober and unpresuming confidence in individual judgment will return, tempered with somewhat of charitable allowance for others who may be, as yet, in involuntary ignorance of particular truths, and who may appear to oppose them, simply because they have never had them intelligibly presented to their cognizance. Such may be the case with Christians of moderate intellectual capacity, but of a thinking turn of mind. It is, however, much more likely to be so with those who are capable of becoming theologians, if gifted with charity and candour.

Candour is, indeed, hardly possible in Theologasters, who only wish to be as dogmatic and exclusive as they can upon a small stock of knowledge. Their easiest resource is to take up some formula connected with the controversies of the day, and use it as a criterion of orthodoxy. Such a phrase, for instance, as that there is no objective presence of the "Thing signified" in the elements in the Holy Eucharist,' is a very easy principle to assume, and one which looks at once theological and philosophical; and yet it may be taken up and made the basis of a whole position, without any clear understanding either of its grounds or of its consequences. On the other side, the assertion that the Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord, which is given in the Holy Eucharist, are the same in which He suffered on the Cross,' is capable of being affirmed or denied in very distinct senses, and either the affirmation or the denial may mislead a mind that rests in words, and does not search for truth as for hidden treasure. The safest ground we have in the controversy of the Holy Eucharist is the simple belief of God's promises made to us in the Sacrament. Any hastily assumed criterion is sure to prove fallacious, because it is not even itself understood. The greatest divines can see the truth in simple men's faith as well as in clear and orthodox statements, and can even trace it in the honest expressions of men in partial error. It is scarce less to the honour of S. Athanasius that he could discern the obscured orthodoxy of the Semiarians, than that he was the instrument of fixing the Church's faith in the doctrine of our Blessed Lord's Divinity.

But there is still a danger for those who walk by simple faith, when they meddle with controversy. For nothing is more difficult than to judge exactly how far Feeling is an evidence of the truth of a given Doctrine. We feel that a particular view of Divine truth is edifying to ourselves; we seem to have an inward sense of its reality, and think that it would be an unfaithfulness to our highest spiritual instincts, and to the

grace of God itself, to doubt its completeness and certainty. Yet if we would judge fairly, and avoid a high probability of error, we must allow for the possible confusion of our own intellectual sight, and be prepared to separate images which we have viewed conjointly. For even a false intellectual representation may contain in it enough of truth to affect the heart rightly, and a true doctrine, very imperfectly understood, may be strongly and profitably felt. And one part of the truth may take so strong a hold of the affections, as to make every mention of another part excite suspicion, as though it were brought forward as a cloak for the suppression of the favoured particular. Especially in the case of a subject at once complex and mysterious, a variety of considerations are so mingled together, that it is difficult to give due prominence to any one without seeming to neglect the rest. And somehow or other controversial minds are apt to lay stress on their negations, and to carry their jealousy of any interference with their favourite view to the height of exterminating every other.

Thus, in the Holy Eucharist, one mind is accustomed to dwell on the memorial of our Blessed Lord's passion, another on the pledge of present grace, another on the work of the Holy Spirit, another on the presence of our Blessed Lord's Divinity, another on the presence of His Sacred Body, another on the past sacrifice of the Cross, another on the present sacrifice of the Altar, and any one of these points may be insisted on with such jealousy of interference or preference as to be made to exclude some other. The figure may be made to exclude the real presence, or the real presence the figure, or the memorial the present sacrifice, or the present sacrifice, in some degree, the memorial of the past, and so in other cases, while the genuine inquirer after truth will rather see how much of what is commonly and reasonably thought to form part of the Doctrine of the Sacrament he can include in his own view. The devout reader, then, may fairly be called upon to peruse such a work with some amount of impartiality, and to prepare to enlarge his views and his sympathies, if he can do so without prejudice to his solid and practical convictions, and to the Truth he has already received on valid authority.

Another class of inquirers are liable to a very different danger, that of determining to believe nothing but what they can understand; and that in such a sense as to deny every mode of causation to which they cannot find a parallel, and of which they cannot give what they consider a rational account. Upon such principles the question must be asked, What is the parallel case to the operation of the Christian Sacraments, or of each of them in particular? And an answer must be demanded, referring that operation unequivocally to some of the processes

with which we are acquainted in the physical or the intellectual world. One who assumes this principle, and adheres strictly to it, will most certainly find Archdeacon Wilberforce's work disappointing in its result, however interesting and complete in its analysis of the subject. And the same principle demands that a large portion of the language in which the Fathers speak of the Holy Eucharist should be set down as vague, unmeaning, and superstitious. The question for those who fully recognise the authority of Holy Writ, is, whether the same may not be said of the expressions used by the Apostles, and of those attributed by actual witnesses, writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to our Lord himself. The doctrine of the Incarnation, again, is supernatural, and cannot be very consistently received by any one who is prepared to protest against any operation that is referrible to no known class as incredible. In fact a rationalist with respect to the doctrine of the Holy Sacraments ought, in consistency, to be a Nestorian, and to consider the union of the Two Natures in our Blessed Lord as not strictly and completely personal. For the personal unity of Godhead and Manhood is a supernatural fact, which may in all reason be expected to have supernatural consequences. This connexion of the Doctrine of the Sacraments with that of the Incarnation has been worked out to some extent in Archdeacon Wilberforce's former books, and is completely developed in his present volume. And if there are here and there expressions which may be questioned on the ground of philosophical accuracy, there is so much clear and thorough investigation, and such weight of authority adduced, as to show beyond the possibility of a doubt that the main view of the influence of our Lord's humanity in the renewal of mankind was received by the Primitive Church, and has strong countenance from Holy Writ.

On such subjects, if we are to receive revelation at all as such, we must admit the logic of authority. Some modern systems tend rather to the discarding of this form of reasoning, but the day which banishes it from Theology brings in the denial of any definite revelation. If there are no words which we are to receive as declaring the mind of God, we must have recourse to inward impressions, and the development of our own ideas, without any external help but such as is derived from those of other men. And these will be suggestive, admonitory, and corrective, but not authoritative. If, on the other hand, we have truly a written Word of God for our direction, we may still use all the same means of clearing and completing our conceptions of the truths declared; but we must apply them to the explanation of known statements, and learn by what God teaches us within to understand what it has pleased Him to

declare to us from without. It may be true that simple deduction, by the force of terms, is an unsafe process in dealing with authoritative propositions; but it is only unsafe so far as the meaning of the terms in question is not distinctly apprehended. When we really know what they mean, we may reason about them with freedom and safety, only retaining our caution that we do not depart from their true meaning. This, however, is the great difficulty in Theology, and almost every controversy turns upon the right acceptation of a term. Theologians have from this circumstance incurred the ridicule of the world and its philosophers, but it has never been shown that we could have had any Theology at all without being liable to such difficulties and imperfections, arising out of the infirmities and negligences of men. With our best endeavours we shall continue to be liable to them; but if there is any way to escape from them, and so any way to ultimate peace and unity, it must be by some such searching investigation as that which is undertaken and followed out in the work before us. It is not, after all, a long deductive process that we require, and it may be true that for such a process we could never trust our understanding of terms so subtile in their meaning, and so delicate in their apprehension, as those of Theology. But if we can understand them at all, if we can have any knowledge about them, we certainly may derive some part of that knowledge from the juxtaposition and comparison of the various authoritative statements we possess. And more particularly we may use a kind of inductive reasoning with regard to them, and eliminate irrelevant meanings by clear statement of the case, and disprove such as are inadmissible by tracing them down to evidently false consequences.

There will still be room for error, but prejudice or inattention are usually the chief causes of error in such reasoning, and those who will give it a fair measure of application may reckon upon at least advancing toward Truth, so far as they proceed in the spirit of humility and honest inquiry. They may not attain to the whole truth, for who among men can boast that privilege? But they will make real acquisitions in knowledge, and acquisitions in Divine knowledge are helps toward deeper piety and more extended charity. And if they enable us to see more clearly the evil and danger of false views, they at once open to us the sources of error, and show us how honest and pious minds may be inadvertently drawn aside from the truth. learn to make allowance where it is possible, and to rejoice that the Church comprehends within her pale many whom a merely intellectual rule might exclude, while at the same time we are enabled to define more exactly what is her real teaching. In most of the controversies of the present day the ultimate result of an examination of the grounds of difference is to reach the

point where the rationalistic and the supra-rationalistic class of minds diverge, and to leave the language of the Church capable of interpretations suited to either. The latter find no difficulty in any Catholic formula, their only question being how to bear with their less believing brethren. The former adhere to the Church or separate from her, according to their views of her office and authority. For although their theory scarcely admits of their believing her to be divinely inspired in her judgments, it does not forbid their considering her a divinely appointed channel for the conveyance of truth, and holding that her words have a claim to a favourable interpretation, and a prescriptive right to general adoption. What is to others mystery, to them is metaphor, and it would not be easy, were it desirable, to frame terms of communion which they could not accept, without resorting to language rather metaphysical than theological, and committing ecclesiastical authority to doubtful and temporary theories. It is unfortunate, however, when minds of this class think it necessary to give prominence to their negative side, and to denounce all mystery as mystification, and all supernatural belief as superstition. And though we may reverently accept the decree of Divine Providence, which bids us endure their shallow and irrelevant declamations, and still deal with them as brethren, it is difficult at times to answer the complaints of earnest and simple believers, who wonder that they are permitted to deny the truth, and yet to remain in communion with the visible Church. But it may yet be true that they believe according to their understanding, and that their continuance within the Church is better than would be their expulsion. Would that they could in any degree appreciate the scandal they give, and the impossibility of forcing upon mankind their cold and superficial views!

It would not be worth while thus to open anew the trenches of inquiry, and draw attention to the fundamental laws and conditions of Theological induction, unless a somewhat unusual opportunity were presented to the student. But such is certainly the case with the work before us, whether its conclusions be right or wrong, satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Whether right or wrong in his judgments, the author has unquestionably applied a vigorous mind, with no ordinary industry, to the analysis and classification of the various opinions which have prevailed on the subject he has undertaken to investigate. And he has shown, in various instances, the bearing of different portions of the doctrine upon each other, and the compensations which enabled those who differed on important points to maintain apparent consent. This process of analysis is to that of ordinary controversialists somewhat as that used in the best modern grammars is to the old Procrustean method of cutting