have forgotten, and we have no desire that they should, that we spoke out plainly and strongly in former articles upon the attitude taken by the Anglican Church in the Confederate States during the late, unhappily unsuccessful, struggle for independence. We made one mistake, and one only: we did not enough calculate on the vis of brute force brought to bear on the one side, or on the depth of exhaustion reached on the other. As to the political and ecclesiastical opinions which we expressed, we have not a syllable to retract. That the Southern States had the right to resume, or rather to retain, their independence we had and we have no doubt. That the North, in manufacturing at so costly a price a Poland, wider and nobler than its European prototype, has made a blunder which will sooner or later, bear its bitter fruit, we feel certain. These premises granted, and being Anglicans, and not Ultramontanists, we scout as preposterous the theory that there was any taint of schism in the independent action of our Church in the Southern States during the brief and anxious though glorious months during which the Confederacy was a power of the earth. Rightly, then, or wrongly-rightly we say-the Southern dioceses had moulded themselves into an autonymous province, and it would be difficult to show cause why they should be compelled at the close of the war to re-enter, not communion-for that was never interrupted—but renewed confederation with the Northern dioceses. At the same time we refuse to blame them if, in the agony of their great exhaustion, with the fact of military despotism bearing heavily on them, they feel themselves compelled, in their hour of weakness and isolation, to accept what they cannot resist. It would be no schism to decline it it is no treason to a lost cause to accept it. In either case their chief practical work will be the same, viz. to mitigate the evil effects of that which, had it been maturely, tenderly, and Christianly carried out by the statesmen and philanthropists of an independent South, would have been a blessing to the whole world, but which may yet, forced on as it is in spite by one side, and accepted in despair on the other, prove the fountain of unnumbered woes-the unloosing of the black denizens of the Southern States.

6

'Convalescence: Thoughts for those who are recovering from Sickness,' by Mr. R. Milman, Vicar of Marlow (Masters). This little book may be safely recommended to those who require for themselves or others the kind of special instruction and devotion which it furnishes; and we take it that the great majority of the clergy who have much experience of parochial work are quite prepared to endorse the author's statement, that while there are many excellent books for the sick while they are ill, there is a felt want ' of a distinct and separate book for those who are recovering.' The lack of such a book is not more conspicuous than the urgent need for something of the kind. What parish priest has not had to lament over the speedy relape into the old thorough worldliness which has marked the return to the ordinary avocations of life of more than one whose weakness ought to have been spiritually profitable to him, and might have been, had the period of convalescence been made a period of special reflection and systematic devotion? That Mr. Milman, having felt this want, should have supplied it successfully, will surprise no one who is at all acquainted

with his other works of a devotional character-for in them, as in the Thoughts' before us, Mr. Milman has shown that he knows how to clothe the utterances of a fervent spirit in language that is forcible without being exaggerated, stirring, yet always in perfectly good taste; how to avoid dryness on the one hand, without approaching to anything like cant on the other. We wish Convalescence' all the success it deserves.

Mr. Bright, of University College, has published some 'Hymns and Poems' (Rivingtons), a few of which have been already printed, which exhibit much pious and reverent feeling, and, with less of the ruggedness, recall much of the spirit of the Lyra Apostolica.

Mr. Malan's line of research is much out of the beaten track. One of the most learned, he is at the same time one of the most unaffected, writers of the day. In his History of the Georgian Church' (Saunders & Otley), a translation, he introduces us to an entirely new chapter in Church history, and an interesting chapter too.'

'Cathedralia' (Masters), by Mr. Mackenzie Walcot, is, we fancy, a reprint. It combines an amount of information on the constitution, corporate rights, and internal discipline and uses of capitular bodies, such as has never been got together before. We do not find the arrangement very lucid; and never did a book cry so loudly for an index.

Mr. Clark's quarterly instalment of his useful translations from the German consists of continuations. 'Hengstenberg on S. John,' and 'Keil and Delitzsch on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth.' Under something of ponderosity the pious spirit of the former commentator renders this an agreeable practical exposition.

'Senex' writes a Letter to Archdeacon Wordsworth, under the title of Visible Unity.' &c. (Hatchard). Making no pretension to deep learning, or to have searched into the labours of the Fathers,' this excellent old gentleman had ample reason for saying nothing on a subject of which he knows nothing.

THE

CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER.

APRIL, 1866.

ART. I.-Metaphysical Schools amongst the Jews. By Professor GUSTAVE MASSON. Privately printed. Mitchel and Hughes. London. 1865.

It is certainly not much to the credit of the English Church that none of her divines have produced a work on the Apocrypha. Appointed to be read as the Proper Lesson for fourteen of the Holy Days of the English Church kalendar, and for nearly two months of the ordinary course, we should have thought that a collection of books put forward so eminently for the instruction of the Church's children would have engaged the interest and learning of some of her most eminent sons. But it is not so; with the exception of Arnold's Commentary on Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and some short notices of other writers on the other books, we have no English writer whom we can consult, or look to for information respecting fourteen books attached to the Old Testament Scriptures, under the title of Deuterocanonical. We made personal inquiries at the depôt of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, to ascertain whether there was published there any work bearing on the Apocrypha the answer was in the negative. The notes in Mant's Bible represent all; we need hardly say, out of the reach of most. How a Society, professing to be the handmaid of the Church, can account for this omission, we do not know; the fact certainly reflects no credit on the Society. But it is not mere silence that we have to complain of, the spirit of indifference has been carried out into positive antagonism, so that the very name by which they are best known, that of the Apocrypha, has been wrested from its proper meaning, and has actually a bad sense attached to it. Take, for instance, the learned Dr. Hey, who gives this definition of the word: 'Apocryphal seems usually 'to be opposed to authentic; at least, so as to express doubt

:

concerning authenticity; an apocryphal writing is one whose origin and authority is doubted, or disallowed, which, in this case, is nearly the same with denied... And on other occasions, spurious and apochryphal seem to be sometimes confounded, or apocryphal defined spurious. But it may often happen that a writing which is apocryphal, or of doubtful authority, may 'be spurious also.' (Hey's Lectures, Book I. xii. 2.)

Again:- Apocryphal is generally considered as coming from άπокρúπтw, to conceal, or hide. Yet this derivation does not 'reduce the senses to one; for a book may be hidden or secret in different respects. Perhaps the most ancient idea of an 'apocryphal or secret book is, that is was concealed from the people. According to this, books were apocryphal when they 'were thought such as ought not to be read; which agrees with 'the ancient division of books, into canonical, such as were to 'be read, and such as were apocryphal. The foolish and hurtful writings would be amongst the apocryphal in this sense, and it 'has been thought that some books were kept secret from the people though received by the Church. . . . But a book may 'be hidden, or secret, in respect to the name of the author; < though this is not so likely to occasion any difficulty in the case of anonymous books, as when a name is affixed to it which 'there is reason to think is not really the name of its author. Consequently, secret or apocryphal, in this way, will be nearly 'equivalent to spurious; and will soon come by custom to be fully equivalent to it. In this sense, apocryphal is sometimes 'used. Lastly, a book may be secret or hidden in respect of 'that authority to which it pretends. This sense is associated 'with the preceding, as authority is with author.' (Ibid. IV. vi. 11.) Let any one apply these various senses to each of the books of the canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, or even to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and he will find that we should have to relegate to the class Apocrypha many of those which the Church now accepts as inspired. It is clear that we must look in another direction to discover the true meaning of the term.

Apocryphal certainly means 'hidden,' and, when used to designate certain writings, implies that, either they have a hidden meaning lying under the mere outward letter, in fact, are constructed on the plan of a parable; or, that they are intended to explain and illustrate some hidden system of teaching.

Both these senses are connoted in the word as applied to the Deutero-canonical books, though in various degrees, and varying in extent. We partly explained this matter in an article on Gnosticism, in a late number of the Christian Remembrancer, in which we investigated the origin and substance of certain frag

ments of spurious Gospels and writings, improperly called the New Testament Apocrypha.' The present article is intended to be supplementary to the former, and to pursue the like inquiry into those books added to the Old Testament canon. We take it for granted that our readers have perused the former article; we shall, consequently, spare them a repetition of much that we said there. It is, however, necessary to say this much concerning the origin of the secondary and obnoxious meaning attached to the term as applied to the Old Testament Apocrypha, in order to clear it from the notion that these books are in any sense spurious or mischievous. We may assume that this was the term originally given to the writings of the Alexandrian school of Jewish theology, and that the Gnostics, who were generally acquainted with these writings, continued to bestow the title upon their own heretical productions, as teaching the hidden doctrine of their sect. It is very natural to suppose that the Catholics would attach the bad sense to the Gnostic Apocrypha, which would easily pass on to the other writings which bore the like name, but did not bear the mischievous character of the former. The word, having obtained this obnoxious meaning in popular estimation, it became necessary to find out some reason for its application to the Deutero-canonical books. Hence we have S. Augustine-whose authority has been generally followed-though he frequently quotes portions of the Apocrypha as if they were canonical Scriptures, giving the following definition: Apocryphæ nuncupantur eo quod eorum occulta origo non claruit patribus.' And again, Apocryphi non quod habendi sunt in aliquâ auctoritate secretâ, sed quia 'nullâ testificatione suâ, declarati de nescio quo secreto, nescio 'quorum præsumptione prolati sunt.' These are clearly ex post facto reasons, imagined out of necessity to supply one which had been lost. Modern writers, like Dr. Hey, have been content generally to follow S. Augustine, without inquiring into the matter themselves, and, by so doing, have allowed these books to lie under a sort of slur, from which they have taken no trouble to clear them; and so, doubtless, learned men have been deterred from investigating a subject, both of importance and of interest to the Church, which so largely uses these books in her festal and ferial offices. Nay, more, these divines, by sanctioning the notion that spuriousness is essentially connected with the word apocrypha,' have tacitly permitted a strong prejudice to exist in the Church against their use; a prejudice that would long ago have eliminated them from the table of Lessons,' had they not been preserved by that strong conservative feeling which shrinks from any alteration in the Prayer-book. The present is, then, a very fitting opportunity, when we are threatened with a

6