was his purpose, by means of this affliction, to enhance Job's happiness. As far as Satan was concerned, this affliction, sent at his instigation, was designed for his confusion by the exhibition of Job's constancy; and this end was answered, notwithstanding any weakness he may have betrayed in the hour of its greatest severity. But as far as Job himself was concerned, we are taught, by combining the leading points of the Lord's decision, that the grounds of acquiescence in afflicting dispensations are to be found, first, in God's glorious perfection, and, secondly, in his gracious design thereby to advance the holiness and the highest welfare of the sufferer. And this is precisely the teaching of Elihu, though presented in a different form. What he says in words, the Lord confirms by deeds. The two decisions are in entire harmony, yet each is indispensable.

That the mystery of this perplexing subject is not so fully opened up in this book, belonging to the former dispensation, and perhaps to its earlier periods, as it is in the New Testament, is a matter of course. The Comforter was not yet given to the saints so largely as he is now. And we find holy men all through the Old Testament, and especially in this Book and in the Psalms, uttering their complaints in their afflictions as though they were suffering beneath God's frowns. The full revelation of divine love had not then been made, nor the perfection of the triumph of divine grace over evil been exhibited. So that it might be thoroughly and practically felt how completely afflictions have changed their nature, and instead of being frowns and tokens of displeasure, though merited and temporary, they are become positive fruits and evidences of love, according to the munificence of that gospel grant, "All things are yours,' "All things work together for good." The great Pattern of submissive suffering had not then appeared, nor could the argument so full of consolation be employed, "Seeing that Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same mind." And as life and immortality were not then so fully brought to light, it could not be said with the joyful confidence of an apostle, "These light afflictions, which are for a moment, work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.' And yet it will be perceived that the germs of the whole gospel doctrine are already here, only needing to be expanded to New Testament dimensions. There is not only the utmost harmony, but absolute identity; only one pursues the same course to a further point than the other. Perhaps it may not be improper to seek here the germs of future doctrine to even a greater extent than has now been intimated. It may be that the Messianic contents of this book, (for Christ cannot be absent from any leading portion of the Old Testament,) is to be sought less in detached passages than in its prominent figure, and in the idea presented of the righteous sufferer. The

struggle with Satan's malignity under the seeming hidings of God's face, conduced to Satan's overthrow; the being made perfect through sufferings, and the heightened blessedness consequent upon them, present a conception to the mind which was to be realised in its most perfect ideal. This thought we find freshly pursued under the guidance of the Spirit in those Psalms, in which the righteous sufferer is again depicted, with a basis, perhaps, in the actual experience of the writer, but with unmistakable reference to the future ideal. A line of typical or prophetic reference is thus drawn, culminating in Isaiah liii. in a clear statement of the doctrine of a suffering but sinless Messiah. The counterpart is written in the Gospels.

Every one who reads it must be struck with the sublime power of this wonderful book. And certainly no one can study it without an ever-heightening admiration. The marvellous fertility of its imagery, the grandeur of its descriptions, the masterly treatment of its high and solemn theme, the skill with which its various characters are managed, the vivid boldness with which the workings of a soul in the intensest inward struggles are depicted, and the delicate nicety displayed even in minute points of its structure and arrangement, place it among the loftiest productions of genius, even were it to be considered in no other light. That the author of such a book as this should have wholly dropped from sight, and have made no figure with his transcendent abilities in the history of Israel, seems scarcely supposable. It has often and justly been remarked, that the writer must have drunk deeply of the cup of affliction himself, have known in his own experience the inward conflict he portrays, and had brought home to his own heart the lessons that are here set before others. Can it be only another, in a series of fortuitous coincidences, that the reputed son of Pharaoh's daughter was driven forth an exiled fugitive for forty years for the crime of sympathising with the Lord's people?" choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the temporary pleasures of sin." Who can tell what it cost him to submit to this sudden reversal of fortune, and this apparently utter blasting of long cherished hopes, instilled even by a mother's faith into his infant mind? We see a momentary trace of it dimming his joy at the birth of his first-born son, (Exod. ii. 22). We read its permanent effects in the transformation of the impetuous youth into the man of selfdistrust, and of meekness beyond that of any upon the face of the earth.

The volumes named at the head of this article are the best with which we are acquainted, that have appeared upon Job within the present decennium in Europe or America. That of Professor Conant is a translation with notes; each of the others is a commentary with a translation. The very cursory examination

which we have been able to bestow upon the work of Professor Conant satisfies us of the scholarship and ability with which it has been executed; and we have no hesitation in commending it to students of this book as a valuable aid toward its interpretation. That we find ourselves to differ from him in some of his views, does not surprise us in a book which confessedly presents so many difficulties.

While such is our judgment, however, of this work as a private enterprise, we must not be understood for one moment to endorse the action of the Society, under whose auspices it is given to the public, nor to consent that this new translation should supersede in general and ecclesiastical use the common authorised version. It savours of no small presumption, in our judgment, for the fraction of a single denomination to arrogate to itself the work of altering that version, which is the common property of Englishspeaking Christendom. We do not claim perfection for the common version, but we do say that it is the best version in use in any language, ancient or modern. And the chances are ten thousand to one, that if the attempt was now made to prepare a substitute, it would be worse instead of better. And judging by representations made by those who ought to know, we should rate the chances in the attempt made by this Society at an immensely higher figure than that. The evils of making any change will be so serious, that nothing but the certainty of a great and positive good can justify the experiment. The common agreement of all Christian bodies upon the existing version, the familiarity of the people with it, the reverence with which it is regarded, the extent of its introduction into our religious literature, are advantages which will all be thrown away, the moment it begins to be tinkered with. And what, even upon the most favourable assumption, is to be gained by the change? In the great body of the Bible the common version is the very best for the popular reader that could be made even at this day. The parts, where improvement is possible, form not the rule, but the exception, and a very limited exception too. It is almost exclusively in the most difficult passages of such books as Job, or the obscurer prophets, that corrections could be made. In none of these is any important point of doctrine or duty involved; in most, the essential meaning of the passage as a whole would be little if at all affected by the changes to be introduced; while in many, the best scholars are still far from being agreed as to the precise rendering to be preferred. To give a single instance of this diversity, Professor Conant translates Job xxx. 24, "Yea, there is no prayer, when he stretches out the hand; nor when he destroys, can they cry for help." Hahu, "May not a man in falling even raise his hand, nor in his destruction cry thereat?" Schlottmann, "Only let no one lay hands upon ruins; or is his fall another's weal?" Besides

it is not impossible that there may be a reaction in Hebrew philology, and at least a partial return to old traditional interpretations from which it has departed. Of whatever service, therefore, such a translation, as that of which we are speaking, may be in the study of the Bible, and however it may serve as one of the preparatory steps toward an improvement of the existing version at some future time, we are more than ever convinced that the proper time for making any changes in the authorised version has not yet come. And if ever a time should come, when such a thing shall be feasible or expedient, let it be not a sectarian but a Christian enterprise, undertaken by the entire Church using the English language.

ART. V.-1. A Chapter on Liturgies: Historical Sketches by the Rev. Chas. W. Baird, New York, U.S. With an Introductory Preface, and an Appendix touching the Question, "Are Dissenters to have a Liturgy?" By the Rev. THOMAS BINNEY. London: 1856. Pp. 328.

2. Form or Freedom: Five Colloquies on Liturgies, reported by a Manchester Congregationalist. London: Jackson & Walford. Pp. 58.

3. Liturgical Purity, our Rightful Inheritance. By JOHN C. FISHER, Esq. of the Middle Temple. London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co. 1857. Pp. 667.

4. Prayer-Book Difficulties explained: Plain Protestant Explanations of certain Prayer-Book Difficulties, &c. By the Rev. C. H. DAVIS, M.A. of Wadham College, Oxford. London Seeleys. 1855. Pp. 76.

:

OUR occasional insertion of late in the selected department of this journal of papers on the general question of liturgies, advocating views of very various complexion, will of course have been understood by our readers rather as indicating a desire on our part to ventilate the question to which they refer, than as implying any particular views of our own in regard to it. This must have been particularly manifest in the case of the short article last inserted, emanating as it did from a school of ecclesiastical and theological opinion so widely different from our own. The bare possibility, however, of any misconception on this head, combines with the general interest of the subject itself, to induce us to enter more directly on the discussion of a question which, like many other topics of ancient controversy, seems destined to become in our day the subject of fresh inquiry and debate.

The only possible positions in regard to the much-agitated question of liturgical forms are obviously these three :

The use of liturgical forms, and the exclusion of all free prayer. The use of free prayer, and the exclusion of all forms; and The combination, in greater or lesser measure, of both; precomposed materials of thought and language being employed as the aids only, not the substitutes, of the spontaneous and unfettered utterances of devotion.

The first of these is substantially the position of the English Episcopal Church, and of its several branches and dependencies. With the sole exception of the liberty allowed or tolerated of extemporaneous petition before and after the sermon,—a liberty the use of which the extreme length of the other services renders usually as inexpedient, as it is in practice uncommon,-its worship moves on, from day to day and from year to year, in a fixed and unalterable routine, on which neither the most urgent circumstances nor the most uncontrollable feelings can be permitted to infringe. The service may be read quickly or more slowly; with intensest fervour, or with listless unconcern; in simple recitative, or with all the accompaniments of ceremonial pomp and ritual music; may be huddled through as a task or enjoyed as a privilege; may be a mere dead bodily service or a living cardiphonia; but in itself, and in every case, it must be used just as it is, without the addition or alteration of a word, always, everywhere, and by every one who ministers at her altars or worships in her shrines.

The second is the position of the modern Presbyterian and Congregational Churches, and, in a great measure, of the nonepiscopal bodies generally both in this country and America. In some of those communities, indeed, which stand in a somewhat nearer relationship to the Anglican Establishment, the principle of set forms is more or less retained, and in some degree acted on. Here and there, for instance, in a Wesleyan congregation, or a chapel of the Huntingdon connection, may you catch the broken accents, in creed, or collect, or customary response, of that old mother's voice, whom they have only half forsaken. But these instances constitute but, after all, the rare exception, and serve only to impart additional emphasis to the rule, which still marks the great outstanding difference between the worship of Episcopal and non-episcopal churches. Practically at least, if not theoretically and originally, they stand out before men's eyes, the one as using, the other as abjuring and repudiating, forms. If your convictions or tastes draw you towards liturgical worship, you go to the church; if towards the free utterance of extemporaneous prayer, to the kirk or the chapel. The third position was that of the original Reformers and Fathers of the Protestant Church. In their views and prac