of eternal life (Apol. i. 13); this part of the service being closed by the united 'Amen' of the congregation. And (8) lastly, the Communion. This order also agrees almost entirely with that of the Liturgy of Jerusalem (middle of fourth century) as inferred from S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. M. V.) We say 'almost,' because he does not indicate clearly the place of the Oblation of the Elements. It is, however, reasonable to infer that it followed the Kiss of Peace from his pointedly quoting the text, First be reconciled unto thy brother and then come and offer thy gift' (ut supra, § 3). The order of service in the Second Book of the Apostolical Constitutions, and the Greek S. James, together with the Liturgy used by S. Chrysostom, have the Offertory before the Kiss of Peace. This would indicate a difference of use; and, if we are correct in the inference drawn above (p. 53), a use that was later in point of time than that of Justin Martyr and the Clementine Liturgy.

Putting together these different indications, we are strongly inclined to believe that the Clementine Liturgy is a genuine of prayer and thanksgiving (λόγῳ εὐχῆς καὶ εὐχαριστίας) for all things that we enjoy ?' The phrase λóyw evxŷs here gives us the clue to di' evxns λóyou above, and seems to mean 'the form of words in which the prayer is expressed.' We then have to ask, what is the Form of Prayer (ó Tар' avτou) proceeding from Christ?' If it were not for the succeeding clauses, which we have translated above, directly quoting the Words of Institution, and by means of the yàp bringing them into direct connection with this statement, we might accept one suggestion that has been made, namely, that S. Justin means here the Lord's Prayer. As it is, we see that the λoyos euxs must be some formula uttered by Our Lord, recorded in the Gospels in the accounts of the Institution, and repeated at every Eucharist. No words answer to these conditions but the so-called Words of Institution, which, accordingly, we believe to be the formula to which S. Justin refers.

Nor can we regard it so clear as Mr. Ffoulkes does that these Words of Institution did not form a part of the Liturgy known to S. Cyril of Jerusalem. It is true that S. Cyril attributes the Consecration to the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, and that he does not in the Fifth Lecture on the Mysteries quote the words of Institution as part of the Liturgy. We might, perhaps, have expected that he would do so had they occurred in the Liturgy; yet, after all, he quotes but a very few words from the Liturgy in all. But in the Fourth Lecture, at the beginning of it, the Words of Institution are quoted and brought to bear upon the candidate's reception of the Eucharist in such a way as to suggest very naturally that the words formed a part of the service. We therefore hold that S. Justin M. certainly, and S. Cyril of Jerusalem very probably, witness to the recitation of the Words of Institution in the Liturgy as known to them; S. Chrysostom does so very distinctly, at least twice. Nor can we see any great ‘indefiniteness' in S. Cyprian's witness to the same effect, as Mr. Ffoulkes does (ut supra, p. 247, b), ‘Et quia passionis Ejus mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus nihil aliud quam quod Ille fecit facere debemus' (Ep. lxiii. 17).

representation of a Liturgy used somewhere in the West, probably in Rome, about the middle of the third century; not the exact Liturgy totidem verbis, because it appears to be constructed out of at least two, and perhaps more, independent documents, and because of the presence of the long rubrics, which, we believe, would be an utter anachronism in any liturgy even approaching the latest date ever assigned to this one; yet genuine in a very true sense, because the documents out of which it is constructed are genuine, being probably the libelli which bishops, and probably priests too, had for their own use to study the service in. In that case the rubrics might possibly belong to the libelli themselves, being early traces of what afterwards became common in the West, the libri officiales or libri de officiis; or they might, as before suggested, be due to the compiler.

The connection with the Valentinian heresy, and the agreement with Justin Martyr's account of the Christian Liturgy, make for its Western home, though they are but slender indications. Yet quite consistent with this are the complete system of discipline, and the advanced stage of development of the ecclesiastical hierarchy which is assumed in the Liturgy. This has been sometimes made a ground for assigning a later date to the Liturgy, and perhaps necessarily so, if it be assumed that the Clementine is a Palestinian or other Eastern Liturgy. But the whole ecclesiastical system developed earlier in the West than in the East; and there by the middle of the third century we might fully expect to see the Catechumens and Penitents dealt with as we find them dealt with in the Clementine Liturgy; while as for the various ecclesiastical Orders, we find Cornelius, Bishop of Rome (cir. A.D. 250), in a letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 43), enumerating presbyters, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers as the regular ministers of the Roman Church. That same letter, it may be remarked, uses poopopá in the sense in which it is used in the Clementine Liturgy (Lit. E. and W. p. 21) for the portion of the Consecrated Bread given to each communicant. Here there is another slight indication pointing in the same direction.

Possibly some of our readers will think that, because the order of its main parts is that which is commonly considered typical of the chief family of Oriental Liturgies, it ought to be classed as an Oriental rather than a Western Liturgy. We are here on ground where we can only tread tentatively and by inference.

There is so little positive evidence about the

historical spread and development of liturgies! If we were obliged to assign the Clementine Liturgy to a late date, say the fifth century, the above objection would be a weighty one. But if we are justified in placing it in the third century, we escape many difficulties. For there are some grounds for believing that the order of the West Syrian, or Constantinopolitan, Family of Liturgies is nearest to that of the primitive Liturgy-the order (we do not mean the form of words)which was probably Apostolic, and therefore at first carried by the first bands of missionaries into every country where they preached the Gospel. This order, then, and that too in the Greek language, was probably carried to Rome, and remained in use for some time. The early history of the LatinRoman Liturgy has not yet been unravelled. If it derives its origin from a time within the first three centuries, we may state with confidence that it cannot have had exclusive possession of the field. We had occasion above to quote from the Greek letter of a Bishop of Rome, written in the middle of the third century; and there is plenty of evidence to show that there was at least a large Greek element in the Roman Church within that period. The names preserved, the titles used, the documents remaining, such as they are, all point to the fact that Greek was at least largely (if not commonly) in use among them. So that it need cause no surprise if a Greek Liturgy, agreeing even in small particulars with that of Jerusalem, be attributed to the Roman Church during the third century. Neither the language nor the form in the case of the Clementine Liturgy is inconsistent with this hypothesis.

ART. III.-CHARLES LOWDER.

Charles Lowder, a Biography. By the Author of the Life of S. Teresa. Second edition. (London, 1882.)

THIS is a book of absorbing interest, which must needs command a wide circulation, not among Mr. Lowder's many personal friends and those who substantially agreed with him in doctrine, but among all Churchmen who, whatever be their views on the question of Ritual, know a true man when they see him, and venerate self-devotion in the work of winning souls to God. The late Vicar of S. Peter's, London Docks,

was not a man of brilliant abilities or great social attractiveness; he was, the biography repeatedly informs us, by no means eloquent as a preacher, nor did he at first know how to make religious teaching attractive; his insight into character was not always to be relied upon; his asceticism impaired his health, and withal his working force. To some persons he gave the impression of being naturally stiff and cold; of 'even practising a reserve of speech and manner,' of having to acquire gentleness by efforts which might be called 'business-like and mechanical' (pp. 115, 118). But if ever a man was real, Charles Lowder was that man. What need to speak of his calm unexcited courage, his splendid patience, his unsparing laboriousness, his habitual far-reaching charity, his burning love of souls, his intense loyalty to Christ as a personal Saviour? We speak of the founder of S. George's Mission, the man whom the rough population of that wild East London district received with suspicion soon deepening into violent hostility, and ended by adopting as their own 'Father Lowder;' who, in September of 1859, was nearly thrown into the docks by a mob elaborately lashed up into fury, and whose coffin, in the September of 1880, was beset by 'crowds of weeping men' pressing forwards only to get a touch of the pall that covered it. As the Spectator of January 21 justly said, this memoir is 'the record of a very noble life:' a life full of unconscious greatness, to which the term 'heroic' would not be misapplied.

Some, perhaps, have forgotten that Mr. Lowder served his apprenticeship to London Church work under Mr. Skinner (so recently taken from us) at S. Barnabas, Pimlico, from the autumn of 1851 to the late summer of 1856. It was at a time of vehement anti-Catholic agitation that he began his ministry as assistant curate at that celebrated church. Puritanism, or popular Protestantism, had already exhibited its readiness to use very base weapons against whatever it deemed 'Popish.' Furor arma ministrabat. If ever a religious party has demoralized itself by employing the most unspiritual and unevangelical agencies, on which it could not pretend to hope that a Divine blessing would rest, by joining hands with the world in its worst form to secure its assistance against unpopular opponents, it is the party which profited by the riots at S. Barnabas in 1850 and 1851, and the riots at S. George-in-the-East in 1859 and 1860, and which, having thrown its activities into the lines of the Church Association, is now deliberately bent on rooting out of the Church of England whatever will not conform itself to the Privy Council

version of Prayer-Book law. Let us turn back to two grave and far-sighted articles of the Christian Remembrancer for 1851, and extract a few significant passages, which cannot be read in 1882 without a sense of thankfulness on one hand, but also of renewed anxiety on the other :

'It is quite true that appearances are formidable; the odds are against us; we are playing at this moment, we are well aware of it, a losing game; it has been so for some time, and things are not likely soon to mend. It is trying, very trying, not the least so to Englishmen, to be on the losing side. We must be content with it, however, we must make up our mind to it, ... if we will help to keep the English Church what she has been, the witness to England of the truth and continuity of the Catholic Faith. Those who cannot bear to be on the losing side had best not embark in her cause, at least not on her own principles. Our day, it seems, is to be one of conflict. We may not relish such additional trials of courage, constancy, steadiness of aim, and clearness of thought. But . . . they prove nothing against the goodness of a cause; we had no right to expect exemption from them; and they will compensate for much sadness and many losses, if they make us more thoughtful and more true' (vol. xxi. p. 210 seq.).

Again—and this will introduce one of the most painful sides of the subject—the writer is speaking of such a policy as Bishop Blomfield pursued in the S. Barnabas case:

'If these (acts) indicate what the High Church party are to expect from the authority of the English Bishops, they are signs of coming mischief and confusion more portentous than any other, because they are signs of increasing blindness to realities, of increasing readiness to sacrifice deliberately truth and fairness to the menaces of the many or of the great, increasing inability to face prejudice and clamour, increasing insensibility to the real strength, real dangers, real weapons of the Church. The Bishops cannot alter things ... cannot alter her documents, cannot prevent men from reflecting on them, comparing them, acting on them. The Bishops may place themselves in contradiction with the spirit of their own office, by siding against Church principles in favour of their ancient and plain-spoken opponents. Whether our Bishops are likely to gain by such a course may be questioned, but one thing is certain, that they will not be the arbiters of the result,' &c. (ib. p. 5c2).

What was the 'Ritualism' of S. Barnabas at the time in question? What was it, in Mr. Skinner's words (p. 36)— which roused such a storm and provoked such outrage,' so that towards the end of 1850 'the religious people of the district were so horrified by the blasphemous cries of the mob that they were fain to keep within their houses?' It consisted