While we accept with thankfulness that teaching concerning the Teρixρnois of the Divine Persons which is the immediate subject of S. John Damascene, we venture with humility to question his negation of a similar epixwpnois with respect to man. In the first place we believe that realism is the only theory consistent with the fact of the Incarnation ; for if humanity be not a reality, but only a mental conception, Christ cannot have taken and delivered entire and perfect man. And secondly, we view with fear a doctrine which seems to give a double meaning to the word Person, to regard it as denoting a limitation in man, and no limitation in God. If man be indeed in God's image, then whatsoever is truly in man must correspond with what is in God; as the reflection of a face in a mirror must still be in the form of a face, not a hand or a foot, although the colour and shape of the face may be imperfectly reproduced in the faulty material of which the mirror is composed.

Assuming, then, the real existence of humanity, we may expect a true πεpixρnois of those persons who are partakers of that common nature. And we have seen some indications of such a coinherence (even in our fallen and selfish state) in man's capacity for domestic and social life. It is not, therefore, inconceivable that a man should live in the Man Christ Jesus, just as truly as the Father liveth in the Son, and the Son in the Father.

But this does not cover the whole mystery of our sanctification in Christ. The Person of our Redeemer is Divine. That there is a real humanity common to men, and that human personality does not prevent the coinherence which is due to this community of nature, has been maintained. But is there any community of nature between God and man, upon which this coinherence of human persons with the Divine Person of the Son of God may be based? Here, as it seems to us, Mr. Jukes's teaching has special value. He points out how the ideal manhood is eternally in God, though we as individuals, partakers of that ideal, are creatures of time. If we are all His creatures, 'we are also His offspring' (Acts xvii. 28), and our true perfection, to which we are brought by Jesus Christ, is 'to be partakers of the Divine nature' (2 S. Peter i. 4).

Without attempting, then, to consider more minutely the relation between the Divine and the human natures, we have seen enough to gather that there is such a correspondence as renders possible their co-existence in our Lord Jesus Christ: a co-existence which is itself sometimes described by the

name of πɛρixwpnois,' which properly and originally belongs to the coinherence of the Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity. And, further, our participation in that human nature, which in Christ is complete, and is in actual union with the Divine nature, enables us to enter personally into the Divine Person of the Son of God-to be sanctified by dwelling in Him, even as He dwells in us. To this correspondence between the relation of the Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity, and our relation to Christ in our sanctification, our Lord seems to refer in His Eucharistic prayer (S. John xvii. 20-26) :

'I I pray. ... that they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us (ér ýμìr woir) and the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one even as We are One. I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one (teteλeiwμévoi eiç ëv) . . . . I have declared unto them Thy Name, and will declare It; that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me, may be in them, and I in them.'

But if these two TEρixwpnoεis are analogous, there must be a certain similarity between the Divine and the human natures, upon which sanctification may be based. What is this similarity, and how far does it extend? Perhaps these questions are at present incapable of an answer. The discovery of our likeness to God seems to depend upon the discovery of what God truly is (1 S. John iii. 2). Meanwhile we know that we are not only God's creatures, but God's children, because the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ' (1 S. John v. 20).

It cannot be said that Mr. Jukes clears up the difficulty; but at least he suggests certain elements for its solution which are not commonplaces in modern theology. He devotes his sixth chapter (on S. John viii. 42-48) to the 'Divine Nature of the New Man.' We think we shall not misrepresent his teaching if we present it in some such terms as these:

Man is created in the Image, or Son, of God, as his Divine and Eternal Ideal. With this reference our Lord is called The Beginning of the creation of God' (Rev. iii. 14, cf. Col. i. 18), not because He is a creature, but because He is the Ideal after which all things were created, and especially man. Now the real being of a thing is not in itself, but in that Ideal, or conception in the mind of God, which causes it to be what it is. To answer, then, the question, What is man? we must have regard not so much to his phenomenal exist

1 S. John Damascene, De Fid. Orth. iii. 3.

ence as to his real being, which is the Son of God. Christ is the true man, of whom every man ought to be a reflection or manifestation, though this function is actually deranged by sin.

The Son of God, then, is eternally the Ideal Man. He becomes likewise the Phenomenal Man in the Incarnation; because that which He takes of Mary is a perfect exposition, in the sphere of creation, of Himself, the uncreated Ideal of Humanity.

There is, therefore, no such contrast and separation between the Divine and the human as is sometimes supposed. Rather, the two are related to each other by a bond closer than that of mere creation-a bond which has no adequate expression save in the word 'generation,' which expresses primarily the relation between God the Father and God the Son. Thus in man there is the manifestation of God; and in God there is the Ideal of man.

This view lies at the bottom of Mr. Jukes's very interesting exposition of the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec.' Perhaps he brings a dubious element into his exposition when he urges that the name 'El Elyon, that is "The Most High God," . . . . implies a series of like natures, who may be called gods' (p. 142); for there is in the Hebrew nothing corresponding to the superlative of the English version. Nevertheless, the whole passage in which he treats of this priesthood is well worth study.

Starting from the contrast between the Son of Man' and the 'Seed of the woman,' he points out that the former indicates the unity, the latter the division, of mankind. To the division belongs that dispensation of election, by which some are chosen out of mankind to be priests and saviours for the rest. And in this respect our Lord, 'made of a woman, made under the law' of the elect nation, offered Himself for us on the cross. His offering of Himself in heaven is no longer after the priesthood of election, as was Aaron's. 'Being made perfect, He has become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him, called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.' Melchisedec being priest of the Most High God, the priest after His order draws into Himself all those brethren who likewise in their degrees are called 'gods, and children of the Most High.'

We think Mr. Jukes might have advanced a step further with safety and advantage. Who is, mystically considered, this Melchisedec, after whose order the perfected Christ is made a priest? There is but One to whom the description in Heb. vii. 2, 3 applies: King of Righteousness, King of

Peace, without Father or Mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life-who is this but the Unbegotten, Underived, Source of Godhead, the Father? But is the Father a Priest? Surely, if the essence of priesthood be sacrifice, or living for others. For the 'movement' of the Father's life (to use the phrase of S. John Damascene) is one of absolute imparting of Himself to the Son. All things that the Father hath are Mine' (S. John xvi. 15). And, if we may speculate reverently on such a mystery, the Father is His own Priest-Priest of the Most High God: because He satisfies the demands of His nature by His self-sacrifice. He is the first to experience the true joy of self-sacrifice, to 'see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied'; He reveals in Himself the prototype of the glad self-surrender which His Son practises and inculcates, teaching that whosoever shall lose his life, the same shall preserve it' (S. Luke xvii. 33).

one.

The Son, who hath nothing of Himself, but receiveth all that the Father hath, receiveth from Him this glad impulse of sacrifice. As the Father lives for the Son, so the Son lives for the Father. The Son, then, is a Priest, not by any original priesthood, but by a priesthood after the order' of His Father. The sacrifice of the Father and of the Son is identical, except so far as the Son, being begotten, derives the life which He sacrifices from the Father, who Himself derives it from no Thus there is revealed in the Holy Trinity a continuous current of sacrifice—the Father living for the Son, and the Son for the Father-the 'power of an unbroken life' (Swns ȧKATAλÚTOV, Heb. vii. 16). Other priests were appointed κarà vóμov ÉvτoλĤs σaρkívηs, by an outward, fleshly, injunction of service, which did not consciously spring from the self-sacrificing love of God the Father, nor willingly strive to reproduce it. The eternal sacrifice of Christ completes (if one may dare to say so) the circle of Divine life and sacrifice with an arc absolutely equal and correspondent to the arc which denotes the life and sacrifice of the Father. And into that circle we are admitted, who are children and priests of God in Christ.

We have perhaps said enough to show the great interest and value of Mr. Jukes's book. It must not be supposed that all the theories to which we have drawn attention are his. Perhaps he would repudiate some of them. But he is at least so far responsible for them, that his writings, so full of suggestion, compel the reader to follow out his speculations. One is tempted to pile up a cairn on the top of a mountain; and the mountain must bear the weight of the cairn, such as it is.

Probably the best part of the book is that which we have not thought it reverent to touch. We have only attempted to elucidate some of the theological conceptions which lie at the root of the devotional part of the book. And these speculations cannot surely fail to be suggestive of meditation and resolution. What manner of love is this which causes God to spend Himself upon men created in His Image! What manner of holiness and sacrificial service are due from men who are found to be not merely creatures but children of this Holy, Blessed and Glorious God! Où yàp πTWXEVEL OεÒS πτωχεύει Θεὸς καὶ σὲ Θεὸν ποιήσας εἰς δόξαν αὐτοῦ (S. Hippolytus, Ref. Har. x. 34).

ART. III. THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

1. Seabury Centenary: Authorized Report of the Proceedings in Scotland and elsewhere. Edited by Rev. J. S. WILSON. (Aberdeen.)

2. The Book of Common Prayer, with the Changes recommended by the General Convention: Authorized Edition. (New York.)

THE solemn observance last autumn, in Scotland and at S. Paul's Cathedral, of the centenary of Bishop Seabury's consecration as the first Bishop of our communion for America has naturally directed special attention to the Church in the United States. Apart from this particular cause, the constantly increasing flow of travel between the Old Country and the New, whether for purposes of business or of pleasure, and the interlacing of interests consequent thereon, must make an intelligent knowledge of the position and character of the American Church a matter of real, and in many cases of personal, interest to English Churchmen.

It is not the purpose of this paper to review the history and growth of the American Church within the last century, nor to dwell on the contrast, naturally much emphasized at the Centenary, between her pitiful condition in the years preceding and immediately following the War of Independence and her present changed aspect, a young and vigorous Church,' according to the Bishop of S. Andrews' description, 'in a