lation of the priesthood as bearers of grace from GOD to man; that their relation as standing in behalf of man before GOD.

Mr. Stanley makes this Epistle so limited and biographical (v. 15,) as to rob it of its high philosophical value. Nor is he happy in the moral conception of S. Paul's character which he draws from it. We have only space for one illustration more, and that will show how singularly unfortunate he is when he attempts to illustrate inspired literature from uninspired :—

"It is instructive to observe the Apostle's shrinking from the disembodied state beyond the grave, and his natural sympathy with the awe with which many good men have regarded the advance and progress of death. There is no Platonic doctrine of a vague and impalpable immortality; no Stoic affectation of rising above the ordinary feelings of humanity. It is (on a lower scale) the same picture which is presented to us in the Agony of Gethsemane, FATHER, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.' It is the Christian and Apostolical expression of the feeling described in the well-known lines of Gray

"For who, to dull forgetfulness a prey,

This pleasing, anxious being ere resigned?

Left the warm precincts of the cheerful day,

Nor cast one longing, lingering look behind?'"-II. 99.

It is difficult to understand how any one can have read S. Paul's Epistles in such a way as to gather from them such a sentiment. It is awful to think of the juxta-position of that sentimental lyric with the prayer of our SAVIOUR in the contemplation of Calvary. At least we shall learn to put little trust in the criticisms of a commentator who could introduce such an expression of cheerless deism as analogous to the bold faith of the Apostle and actually elucidative of his rapturous exclamation when in the midst of daily mortifications, and persecutions, and anguish, he wrote to his converts, "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the LORD, wherefore we labour that whether present or absent we may be accepted of Him."

579

REVIEWS AND NOTICES.

Ecclesiastical Sculpture. A Lecture on the connection between Sculpture and Christianity. By the Rev. W. P. S. BINGHAM, M.A., of Christ Church, Oxford, Curate of S. Mary Redcliff, Bristol. London: Masters.

THE subject on which Mr. Bingham here treats is one that has been so little discussed, and his lecture is, indeed, so very good of its kind, that we purpose devoting a larger space to the notice of it than the smallness of its size might seem to warrant.

The Christians of the first age were not in a condition, it need scarcely be said, to ornament their churches. Rather, churches, in the sense that we use the term now, they did not possess. But when churches were first built, there existed obvious reasons why they should be kept devoid of all pictorial ornament. The first of these was, the prejudice of the Jews and Jewish converts. In the early history of the Israelites, we have

"abundant evidence of their tendency to a violation of the second commandment: we find that after the Babylonish captivity they fell into an opposite extreme. Instead of prostrating themselves before the calves which had been set up at Dan and Bethel, they were now accustomed to regard as an abomination any graven or painted figure of man or beast. Josephus tells us that when Vitellius, the pro-consul of Syria, was engaged in a war against Aretas, the chief of the Jews met him and entreated him to lead his army by another route, since they could not bear the sight of the images, which were upon the standards under which they marched."-Pp. 8, 9.

"When the Jews regarded an image as an abomination, we can easily understand how the Apostles and their successors, whilst they regarded representations in sculpture as indifferent things, would have scrupulously avoided them through fear of placing a stumbling block in the way of the dissemination of the Gospel. In this they followed the same course as they did with respect to the Jewish Sabbath, and the ministration of circumcision under peculiar circumstances."-P. 10.

Secondly, it was hardly safe or expedient to accustom those who had been brought up in heathen idolatry to worship in the presence of pictures or images. For this twofold reason, we may well believe that the earliest Christian temples were singularly bare of ornamentation.

Such historical notices, however, as are to be found on the subject, Mr. Bingham has carefully collected. From these we extract the first part at length.

"Eusebius, when speaking of the image of the Syrophenician woman, says, we ourselves have seen representations of Peter and Paul, and of CHRIST Himself preserved in paintings, as it is probable that, according to a practice amongst the Gentiles, the ancients were accustomed to pay this kind of honour indiscriminately to those who were as saviours and deliverers to them.' this we may infer that the custom of the Jewish and the Gentile Christians differed, and that whilst the former still carefully avoided them, the latter scrupled not to use pictorial representations of Apostles and Saints, as we should use the likenesses of those whom we loved and honoured.

From

"The image of the Syrophenician woman, found at Paneas, better known by the name of Cæsarea Philippi, is thus described by Eusebius: "At the gates of her house, on an elevated stone, stands a brazen image of a woman on her bended knee, with her hands stretched out before her, like one entreating. Opposite to this there is another image of a man, erect, of the same material, decently clad in a mantle, and stretching out his hand to the woman. This statue, they say, is the statue of JESUS CHRIST, and has remained until our times, so that we ourselves saw it, whilst tarrying in that city. This was subsequently removed by Julian, who set up his own image in its room, and the Heathens, out of hatred to CHRIST, treated it with contempt, broke it, and dragged it about the streets. Sozomen tells us, that the Christians gathered the fragments together, and laid them up in the Church, where they were kept to his own time. Tertullian mentions the picture of a shepherd bringing home his lost sheep, engraved upon a communion cup in some of the churches; but these two are the only instances of pictorial representations, which Petavius was able to find in the records of the first ages. About A.D. 300, a council was held at Eliberis, or Elvira, in Spain, which decreed, in its 36th Canon, that pictures ought not to be in the church, lest the object of veneration and worship be depicted on the walls.' From the fact of this prohibition we may infer that the question had already been raised. The wellknown instance of Epiphanius tearing the painted curtain is an evidence that a strong feeling against them still existed, in some places, a few years later. We may, however, look for the first introduction of pictorial representations to the time which succeeded the conversion of Constantine, when the ameliorated circumstances of the Christians enabled them to rebuild their churches with greater magnificence and splendour, than hitherto they had ever done. The causes which accounted for their previous absence had ceased to operate. It was not the custom of the Christians now to regard the prejudices of the Jews, nor was there any longer fear of their being taken for Idolaters. When other arts are made subservient to religious purposes, we see no reason why sculpture should have been excluded; and what subjects could be found more worthy of the chisel than the delineation of Christian emblems and the representation of our LORD, His Apostles, and the Saints of former days. If Gentile Christians had hitherto kept them in their houses without blame, they might now reasonably be supposed to have set them up in their churches.

"It is about the latter end of the fourth century that we first find evidence of the existence of pictures in churches. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, informs us in his writings, that, at the celebration of the anniversary festival of the dedication of the church of S. Felix, he ordered the church to be painted with the images of Saints and Scripture histories, such as those of Esther, Job, Tobit, and Judith; intimations are also given by S. Augustine, of the prevalence of this custom in other places, as he speaks of pictures of Abraham offering up Isaac, of S. Peter, and S. Paul. Even in his time it would appear that they were beginning to be regarded with what he deemed a superstitious reverence. 'Picturarum adoratores,' he says, 'quos et ipsa ecclesià condemnat, et tanquam malos filios corrigere studet.' It is, however, very evident from this, that at their first erection, they were designed to serve no other purpose than that of ornament and historical remembrance.

"Not the pictures of the departed only, but those also of living Bishops and Emperors were introduced into the churches. Paulinus's own picture was set beside that of S. Martin in his church at Nola, and he wrote two epigrams to be placed by them, to teach men not to worship, but to imitate them; the one as a saint, and the other as a penitent sinner. Baronius thinks that Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, (A.D. 488) was the first who had this honour conferred on him; but Valesius asserts that it had been customary long before.”—Pp. 11—14.

With regard to the law of the English Church Mr. Bingham concludes:

"We have no evidence to prove that images were removed by the authority of law, except in particular cases, during the reign of Elizabeth; but if we want a reason for the comparative rarity of ancient images now existing, we shall, I believe, find it in the sacrilegious outrages which spoiled the Churches of their ornaments during the period of the great Rebellion. This, however, could not decide the question, which, being left open in the reign of Eliza beth, has never since been authoritatively closed, and which may therefore be answered by each, according to the bias of his own feelings. When, therefore, the question is asked, to what extent, and in what manner the art of sculpture should be made subservient to purposes of religion, we may discuss it as a matter of taste, and the antiquarian may look back into the ages that are passed, and examine with interest the light in which his forefathers

viewed it.

"One observation more, and I shall then conclude. From one century to another we have traced this question in rapid outline, and have seen how great an apple of discord, in some parts of the world at least, the religious use of that art was found to be, which ranks amongst the foremost in every civilized nation. But in our own country, within the period of our review, closed at a point beyond which it is not the business of the Archeologist to pass, although questions may have arisen concerning the amount of reverence due to images, yet no dispute has ever existed with regard to their lawfulness. The plea urged for their removal at the Reformation, was either their actual abuse, or else their liability to be abused. In determining the value of such pleas, should they be revived in the present day, we must remember that the circumstances of the times are changed, and the habits of men's minds are altered. If our forefathers abused works of Christian art in their days, that is scarcely, I think, a sufficient reason why we should be debarred from their use in ours."-Pp. 34, 35,

The Suffering Saviour; or, Meditations on the Last Days of CHRIST upon Earth. By the Rev. F. W. KRUMMACHER. Edinburgh : T. and P. Clark, George Street; London: Hamilton.

THE Construction of this work is precisely similar to that of Mr. Isaac Williams on the same subject. In style, in execution, in the very words of the Title page, the Lutheran minister-or rather the Scotch Editor, for it was not originally one work-follows so closely on the track of the orthodox priest, that it is but fair to conclude it has been done advisedly. Nor does the resemblance altogether stop here-there is much of the same fervour of feeling and tenderness of expression in both writers. Every page of the book before us causes us to regret deeply that so devout a mind should yet know so little of the fulness of Catholic truth.

Krummacher is claimed as a powerful ally by the Puritanical party; but his real earnestness and sincerity have led him far beyond them in many essential points, although not far enough to make his work otherwise than painful to a Catholic reader. Its chief fault consists in the unwarranted applications of Holy Scripture, with which it abounds; and although some valuable hints may be gained from it, the whole must be received with great caution.

The Communion of the Laity. An Essay chiefly historical, on the Rule and Practice of the Church, with respect to the reception of the Consecrated Elements at the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist. By W. E. SCUDAMORE, M.A., Rector of Ditchingham. Rivingtons.

THE object of this Essay is to prove that in the Early Church, all present at the Celebration were accustomed to Communicate. Now without going minutely into this question, and therefore without saying what amount of weight is due to the evidence produced by Mr. Scudamore, we would just suggest that mere reference to history is not sufficient for settling all cases. Let it be granted for example, that in Apostolic times all present communicated, just as we grant that Public Absolution was more generally used in the Early Church than private Absolution. But what then? This does not prove that in matters of mere discipline like these, what was practised in the earliest times should be practised now. Times, we know, change: and what is good for one age is not necessarily good for another. Or, further, it may be that the earlier practice was found by experience to be inconvenient and as speedily changed by lawful authority.

Now there is strong reason for believing that both in reference to Absolution and the frequency of Communicating, some change was found to be expedient and gradually introduced and sanctioned. A single passage which Mr. Scudamore quotes seems to us demonstratively to prove as much in reference to the latter question. The Clementine Liturgy orders that "the children and all the people shall (at a certain time) receive." Mr. Scudamore in quoting the direction, italicises the word "all;" but let him also italicise the word "children," and he will then remind himself that a practice may be un-Apostolic and yet right. The Western Church, he would think, has done well in not Communicating children, and so she may have done well in permitting adults to remain at the Celebration without partaking. It is a view of the case which is at the least possible, and may we are disposed to think, be worth the consideration of Mr. Freeman and Mr. Scudamore, and others who are so strongly opposed to the practice.

A Memoir of the Right Reverend David Low, D.D., L.L.D., formerly Bishop of the United Dioceses of Ross, Moray, and Argyle, comprising sketches of the principal events connected with the Scottish Episcopal Church during the last seventy years. By the Rev. WILLIAM BLATCH, Incumbent of S. John's, Pittenweem, and lately Clerical Assistant to Bishop Low. London: Rivingtons. burgh Grant. 18mo. Pp. 385.

:

Edin

A BOOK professing to give a sketch of the witnessing Church of Scotland, as she emerged from the persecution and obscurity under which she had long lain, cannot but be interesting: a record of a good man's life (and such was Bishop Low) cannot but be instructive. It is time however, we cannot but feel, that the Church of Scotland should learn to take a sterner view of her position and duties. We can compassionate her suffering clergy, and admire the heroism of her loyal gentry.