prophets, amongst their records to be produced as a w the given time.

These extracts contain answers to all the objections rai not for the first time-by Mr. F. Newman, in a recent n Hebrew Monarchy. We have given them as illustrating poses for which this Commentary will be found useful. tions are raised over and over again, it is well to have n which contain answers.

The Commentary by Stier upon the words of the LOR is naturally of a very different character. The volume before us contains the discourses in the latter half of S Gospel. We shall give an extract from the introduction ter xiv.

"Before we enter upon the detailed exposition of that in whole which flows forth so richly and so profoundly be ταρασσέσθω ἡ καρδία ὑμῶν c. xiv, l. and ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον it is necessary, or we may be allowed, to say some preparato about the sections, and turning points, and fundamental which mark the progress of this marvellous current of discour exegesis can scarcely begin its task before such adjustment of ideas is made. We find indeed in this section, which on that admits of no comparison with any other in Scripture, a pecu culty of analysis; Vinet, commencing in his last days a series of upon it, found" une divine confusion.' For what the depar VIOUR here poured forth for future remembrance and glorific the Spirit remains still inexhaustible for our poor understandi far transcends the common laws of our so-called logical order of

"Where the consolations, disclosures, predictions, and pro the GOD-man for those whom He calls His friends, pulsate in brations of His feeling (deeply moved, but in the most serene sciousness), there the life is from moment to moment-one thin ever in all, and yet every utterance is fresh, distinctive, a Thus the best advised course for the expositor, is to enter and go the whole discourse, as it proceeds sentence after sentence. B he has done this, he may be allowed to gird and qualify himself proper business of an expositor, by unbiassed contemplation an vation upon the whole. In this spirit let the reader now man we have diffidently ventured to set forth."-Vol. vi. p. 177.

These remarks show the pious and thoughtful character pervades the whole book. One may indeed lament that th of thought which is worked out in it is not more simple. I of suggestive matter to the student, but the involved chara the German mind, which has found so apt an embodiment i language, makes the coherence of sentences frequently ext difficult to comprehend. It is so replete with many excell that one would wish to be able to read it with more pl Many passages approach towards being highly eloquent, b

into obscurity through what may perhaps be called an illogical subtilty. We cannot search into the depths of Holy Scripture upon merely exegetical principles, but must carry on our analysis by the help of a complete dogmatic system. Stier does not underrate dogmatic truth, and he somewhat overestimates the independent power of exegetical investigation.

It is not easy to extract a passage from a writer who is so continually recurring to the suggestions of his previous argument, but the following may serve as an average example of the thoughtful interest which pervades the writings of Stier. He is treating of c. xiv. v. 7.; vol. vi. p. 205, 206.

"In perfect perversion they seek a GOD and even a FATHER apart from Him! But in the sincere and desiring simplicity of the ignorance yet blended with their knowledge; not like those liars whom the world, their sin, sufficeth, who therefore need neither CHRIST nor the FATHER, who only dispute about the way,-who have already their God.' Far as the heavens from that mocking question-Where is Thy FATHER? (viii. 19,) the disciples here ask in longing trusting earnestness-show us the FATHER! Although it is here to be seen that the general aspect of error appears very similar in the malignant and in the simply weak; yea, certain fundamental rooterrors must be found maintaining and repeating themselves even in the best, in all their knowledge, until the full enlightenment burst upon them the knowledge of the glory of GOD in the face of JESUS CHRIST. And that makes it necessary to discern rightly the physiognomy of error; to take forth the precious from the vile (Jer. xv. 19, in the Heb.) The presumptuous, overwise, childish, luxurious, clear-eyed understanding may say, Show us! Show us! Prove! Prove! and call out the truth as to a field of war,'-but this is very different from the cry of Philip, Show us! which, though it comes from ignorance is yet the sincere cry of the affrighted and eager spirit. A comparison has been properly instituted with the bold desire of Moses to behold the unseen glory of GoD. Exodus xxxiii. 18. The error here is the desiring to have 'at a bound' as it were, a highest and best revelation (in all things impossible); but it is outweighed by the boldness of faith in the midst of this unbelief in the already given revelation, which indeed does not suffice because it is not yet sufficiently acknowledged and received. Yea, it is true that there is much wanting here as it respects the true connection between the πιστεύειν εἰς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν—Philip ‘lets CHRIST sit there and speak, but cannot cleave simply to the CHRIST who is speaking to him; disregarding Him he wanders away in his own imagination to the clouds-oh! that we could but see the FATHER as He sits there among His angels! (Luther.) Nevertheless, previous to the true 'my LORD and my GOD,' there was no greater honour given to CHRIST or higher power ascribed to Him than this-Show us the FATHER! Besides which there is the inexpressible artlessness and fundamental truth (with all its error) of the confident And it sufficeth us, which in itself furnishes an apt illustration of the difference between a superficial and a profound exposition. The superficial under

stands with Grotius, non ultra interrogando molesti tibi erimus! and even Gessner translates with perfect insipidity-So are we content! The profound finds in it the true presentiment of that highest goal for the aspirations of man's heart, created for GOD and satisfied only in the living knowledge of Him; the real, though half unconscious expression of that great truth-To see GOD is blessedness.' "'

SHORTENING THE SERVICES.

In the discussions which so frequently come before the public eye on the subject indicated by the above title, we seem to discover a want of two or three qualifications in the members of the "talking party" (a large section of the Church in these days) which might lead them and their hearers or readers to a much more near approach towards solving this seemingly difficult problem. It seems to us, for example, as if it were possible to trace in many speakers on this subject, first, a deficiency of historical information respecting the construction of our own Prayer Book; secondly, an absence of experimental acquaintance with the conduct and superintendence of liturgical services; and thirdly, a slight degree of diffidence in the application of common sense to the solution of an ecclesiastical difficulty. The want of these qualifications, (supposing it to exist) is partly to be accounted for by the fact that liturgical studies and liturgical practices were both alike almost unknown thirty years ago, and that in this busy world men are seldom able to acquire in later years either habits or learning for which no foundation has been laid in early life. Under such circumstances it is unreasonable to expect that when subjects are brought before persons so situated for legislation or adjudication, their decisions or their laws should all of a sudden exhibit a perfect adaptation to the nature of the case. We feel a strong conviction however-with every wish to submit ourselves to authority in all doubtful cases-that no legislation or adjudication is necessary in respect to the shortening of our Church Services; but that all, or nearly all, the necessities of our present condition may be met by an application of the three qualifications we have named to the examination of the Book of Common Prayer: and we shall venture to sketch out what we conceive to be the line of reasoning and of conduct which would be taken by any one who should possess those qualifications and apply them to the question before us.

It may be taken for granted that there really is a large number of persons who, without any wish to alter the doctrinal standard of our Services, are really making the complaint that they are too long to be endurable with comfort. It is very easy to dispose of the

objectors by saying that the fault is in them and not in the services, that if they came to church in a proper frame of mind they would not find the two or three hours occupied by the services on the Sunday, or the hour or hour and a half on a week day too large a portion of their time to expend in the direct service of their Maker. But such an accusation has more facility than justice in it. We believe it to be singularly unjust, for that-whether they are right or wrong in the complaint they are making,-the very complaint itself indicates, on the part of those who make it, a reviving interest in the services of the Church, which should be welcomed, and carefully tended, instead of being instantly smothered under the somewhat pharisaical retort to which we have alluded. There is, we believe, and thank GOD for it, a large proportion of the laity whose habits of devotion are so spiritualized that they are able to lift up their hearts to GOD for long continuous periods without distraction or impatience; and who, whatever their wishes might be, are yet able to use our Services under any circumstances, in accordance or not with their feelings and wishes, in a truly devotional manner, truly glorifying the object of their worship, and truly bringing good to their souls. To such there may never have arisen the thought that it was necessary to shorten the Services, but rather their desire has been that they might have opportunity to spend more and more time in Divine Worship. A far larger proportion again are of that stolid character which submits to anything that has become a habit, which can sit out' anything in patience if it is customary; and is perfectly satisfied with things as they are, not because things are such as to chime in with their feelings of devotion, but because they ARE. Such are the great mass of our agricultural population, whether farmers or labourers, whose acquiescence in the present duration and combining of the Services of the Church cannot either wisely or justly be considered as an argument in favour of continuing them in the stereotyped form so long received. Not justly, because such persons are unqualified to offer any opinion on such a subject in its spiritual phase; not wisely, because changes in the mode of conducting Divine Services might be the very means of doing what we all want to do, of rousing these stolid church-goers into habits of active worship.

On the other hand, there is good ground for believing that complaints respecting the length of our present form of Service, as generally used, come from a class of people who may be taken as a type of the present generation, and probably of that which is now rising to take its place. Such complaints come from persons of active minds and business habits, who are accustomed to scan nicely the practicalness of everything in which they engage; not possessed of much theological information, not able to tell themselves distinctly why they are, or are not, Church-people, but much

given to common sense criticism, grudging of unoccupied time, and desirous from habit of making the end and the means thoroughly consistent with each other. To such a type belong our busy tradesmen and their families, our artizans, and to a great extent our town population generally. They may be right or they may be wrong in what they say, but certainly, no wise man who marks the current of events will haughtily 'put down' without inquiry what they do say, or think them not worth an answer.

Assuming then that there are such complaints, and that they come from the class we are supposing, is there, or is there not any reason, beyond want of personal holiness, for the dissatisfaction which they indicate? We believe that there is. It appears to us that this dissatisfaction arises from a feeling,-not expressed or closely defined even to their own minds perhaps, that the Services with which they are familiar as the Services of the Church of England are not such as to promote a devotional spirit in their minds. They come to Church, not full of devotional fervour certainly, far from it but not, on the other hand, in that stolid frame which remains passive under any infliction. They feel a certain amount of interest in what is going on; they have a desire,-not very strong perhaps, but even in the germ not to be slighted,—to profit by their Church going; and when they find themselves unable to keep up that interest on account of causes, as they reason, external to themselves, when they see no relation between their Church going and their spiritual position, and if they find any progress in themselves towards holiness, can trace it rather to some private reading of the Holy Bible, or to the practice of family or private prayer than to the ministrations of the Church,-it is not unreasonable that in such a case they should say, 'the fault is not in us, it is in the system; we wish to praise God in Church, to join with the Priest in his offering of prayer, to make our responses in the proper way, but how can we keep up attention and interest in these long weary Services so unattractive and so spiritless?'

Now such impatience as this, however wrong it may be, must not be disregarded. It throws a thoughtful clergyman back upon the question, 'Why are our Services spiritless and wearisome to so large a proportion of by no means badly disposed individuals? there no way by which I can win them over to love that which now they either dislike or merely tolerate; or by which I can make that profitable to their souls which is now little, if any, better than a mere form to them?' We believe such to be a far more just as well as more loving suggestion for the mind of a clergyman who encounters such objections than the one which throws the blame wholly and at once on the objectors, though one that may involve the disturbance of his own equanimity and the disarrangement of that idol of conservative dispositions, the status quo.

It strikes us that the very first thing that an honest investigator