reward he implored of his royal master for his labours, was to be allowed to visit the prisoners in the Bastille. M. de Sacy then paid his respects to Madame la Duchesse de Longueville, who detained him in her mansion, where he spent the first months of his liberty. From thence he retired to Pomponne, to resume the life of seclusion which was so dear to him; and from that time fresh and increased energy was remarked in him. He adopted till his death a custom of reciting a Psalm appropriate to the subject of his devotions, on three different days of each month; these days were the 26th, the day of his entrance into the Bastille; the 13th, that of his re-union with M. Fontaine, his disciple, in the same room in this fortress; the 31st, that of his coming out of prison. The troubles having ceased under the Pontificate of Clement IX. in 1669, he returned to reside at Paris, whence he often visited the Nuns of Port-Royal des Champs. In 1675 he retired thither, and remained there till 1679. M. de Harlay, Archbishop of Paris, having come to Port-Royal to bring the orders of the Court to send away the boarders and novices, shewed much regard for M. de Sacy, and advised him to retire. This advice was received as a command; and he retired to Pomponne, intending to live for the future in solitude, and there to prepare for death.

His retreat at Pomponne, which lasted four years, that is, till his death, produced the learned and useful explanations of the Bible, which were begun by him, and finished by Messieurs du Fossé et Beaubrun. Without neglecting the literal, he dwells upon the spiritual and moral sense; following the inclination which God had given him, to prefer at all times what was calculated to edify to what was merely speculative. The sole desire of his heart was, the salvation of souls. From this arose his intense ardour to distribute gratuitously religious books. In the country he gave away his own with astonishing liberality. He recommended this species of charity to his friends more than any other. He wished especially that such presents should be made to poor country clergymen, who had no means of buying books. It was with this view that he had always intended to leave his library to M. de Fossé, in order that, without separating it, he might assist those who could make use of it profitably; and at his death, leave it to some one who would do the same. He laboured at his great work on the Holy Scriptures with the same humility which had always characterized him. He always feared that he had entered upon this sacred work without a well assured call to it; and he dreaded lest he should take from the Sacred Scriptures that divine energy which God has placed in them, by adopting language too much like that of mankind. He was fearful of expressing himself in a manner more calculated to please the ear and to satisfy intellectual curiosity, than to edify the heart and to excite love for the truths which the sacred books contain.

Having been taken ill at Pomponne 1683, his friends sent for him to Paris. At the beginning of the following year, Jan. 3, the Fête de Sainte Genevieve, he caused the Life of this Saint to be read to him, and then spoke for an hour to the people of the house, with so much unction and piety, that a person who was present said: "In truth this man no longer belongs to this world: we shall not have him much longer." About an hour after, he was seized with the most violent fever; the next morning, as he felt his end approaching, he of his own accord asked for the Sacraments (according to the Romanist Ritual) and received them before noon. He then settled his affairs, remembered his friends, and from that moment thought of God only. He was fully occupied in ask2 Y

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 102

ing of Him pardon for his sins; ardently desiring that He would cleanse him from them; and truth obliges us to add, alluding to Purgatory, as a means which his goodness grants us after this life in order to render us worthy to enjoy Him. He died in the evening of the same day, aged 71. His body was conveyed to Port-Royal des Champs, where he was buried. At the time of the disinterment of the bodies, in 1711, that of M. de Sacy was carried to Paris, and deposited in the Church of St. Etienne-du-Moul.

The following is a list of his principal works :-1. A Poem of St. Prosper on Divine Grace, translated into French, verse and prose. 2. A Poem on the Holy Sacrament. 3. The "Hours "of Port-Royal, with the Hymns translated into verse. 4. Translation of the New Testament, called de Mons. 5. Translation of the Old Testament. 6. Explanation of the Bible, according to the literal and spiritual sense. (The books commented on by M. de Sacy, are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Judges, the 1st and 2nd Book of Kings, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, the 12 Minor Prophets. The remaining books of the Old Testament, and the four Gospels, were explained by M. du Fossé, and the remainder by M. Beaubrun.) 7. The Imitation of Jesus Christ, translated into French. 8. A Translation of the Psalms, according to the Hebrew. 9. Christian Solitude. 10. Letters of Piety, written to different persons whom he guided.

We have thus endeavoured to present the man-and we may safely say saint-as he was ;-not overlooking his errors, delusions, or superstitions; or attempting to protestantize him, as the English translator of his friend Lancelot's Tour to Alet did that learned Jansenist-the author of the Port-Royal Grammars. We have related facts; and we have spoken of his prayers, feelings, and intentions; and these were right, and heavenward; and he had simple, implicit faith in his Redeemer, and a renewed heart filled with love to God and man; notwithstanding he had not outgrown many of the errors of the communion in which he had been trained. It is not for us to adjust this balance. God alone knoweth them that are his. But alas! may we not fear-is it not certain ?—that many who profess to belong to Reformed and Protestant Churches, would in the day of judgment rejoice that their souls should be with those of Pascal and Arnauld; Fontaine and De Sacy; Fenelon and Quesnel?

In the Supplement to the Port-Royal Necrology, it is said: "During the last three or four years of his life, M. de Sacy was keenly penetrated with these four things-the sovereign justice, and the sovereign wisdom of God; the peace of Jesus Christ in this life; and the peace of God in eternity. He had also an exalted idea of those three Beatitudes ;— Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness; Blessed are those who mourn; Blessed are the poor in spirit; which he said comprised all the rest.

REMARKS ON THE FORM OF PRAYER AND THANKSGIVING FOR THE VICTORIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUTLEJ.

For the Christian Observer.

THE Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving set forth for the victories in the vicinity of the Sutlej has been a theme for severe strictures in several newspapers and other publications, both in regard to its matter and its diction. We spoke of it in our last Number as containing "just and befitting sentiments;" though "the usual style of modern state-prayers

(as they are called) does not well cohere with the simplicity of our national liturgy; and there was in this Form, as in many others, the inconvenience of embodying in the Prayer, as an address to God, what is rather for the information of the people; and which would come in more aptly in the form of an exhortation, confining the prayer or thanksgiving to an expression of the feelings of the suppliant.'

Further remark appeared to us not needed or desirable, as respects this particular formulary; in which the nation, as behoved, was called upon to ascribe the victories to God; to express its gratitude to Him for having brought the warfare in India to a "speedy and prosperous issue;" and to beseech Him so to guide those who preside in the councils of our Sovereign, and administer the concerns of her widely-extended dominions, that they may apply their endeavours to the purposes intended by Divine Providence in committing such power to their hands; and also that we may have peace and plenty at home, and live in unity, and serve God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

But, with a view to future formularies, we may refer to what we mentioned the inconvenience of converting into an address to God what is rather an explanatory preamble for the people. The order in Council was "That his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury do prepare a Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the repeated and signal victories obtained by the troops of Her Majesty and by those of the Honourable East India Company, in the vicinity of the Sutlej, whereby the unjust aud unprovoked aggression of the Sikhs was gloriously repelled, and their armies totally discomfited." This statement was proper, as shewing the duty of thanksgiving to God; and it might very appropriately have been embodied in a few lines of address to the people by the minister before exhorting them to offer prayer and thanksgiving, in order that they might do so intelligently and heartily. But when this is attempted to be engrafted upon an address to God, it becomes necessary to omit some specialties requisite to be known; while there is danger, on the other hand, of making our supplication at the throne of grace a sort of by-whisper or apology to mankind. The difficulty adverted to was so great,-for "the Sikhs and the vicinity of the Sutlej would have sounded strangely in prayer,-that the composer, remembering perhaps the irreverence excited by the mention of "the battle of Salamanca," and other places, during the great European struggle, felt constrained to omit all specification; so that the occasion of the prayer is not endorsed upon it. The second point, that of inconvenient insertion, was peculiarly felt; but there would have been nothing awkward in a preamble to the people: "Dearly Beloved : It having pleased Almighty God;" here introduce whatever might be requisite, in regard to the occasion, the enemy, the danger, the deliverance, but in general expressions, as "her Majesty's arms in India, &c.," concluding, "Let us render humble and hearty thanks to God for the same.' The prayer and thanksgiving would thus be confined to their legitimate object; not telling the Omniscient, however truly, that our foes were a host of barbarous invaders;" "lawless aggressors" entertaining ambitious designs;" that there had been "no injustice on our part, or apprehension of injury at our hands," and that they "sought to spread desolation through fruitful and populous provinces enjoying the blessings of peace under the protection of the British Crown.'

There would be more of symmetry in the style of our modern prayers if Latin words and inversions were not blended with vernacular Latin diction. Some incongruity of this kind was felt in the Form under con

sideration, which begins "O Lord God of hosts, in whose hand is power and might irresistible;" but we will not enter on verbal criticism." The suggestion which we have offered of turning what in an Act of Parliament would be called the preamble, into a prefatory address to the people, instead of making it part of a prayer, would have prevented such strictures as those to which we have alluded; for in asserting the justice of our cause, and laying the blame on our enemies, there is danger of speaking pharisaically; and yet, on the other hand, to have spoken in the prayer of the invasion by the Sikhs as a just chastisement upon us, might have led to incorrect inferences; but a few words of prefatory address would have obviated these difficulties; shewing that while we could plead our righteousness in this matter as between man and man, we acknowledged the justice of God in chastising us, and praised him for his mercy in delivering us.

ON THE USE TO BE MADE OF THE WORDS OF JOB'S FRIENDS.

:

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

COULD Some of your Correspondents give us some useful hints on the following question? What use is to be made of the words of Job's friends? How far is it right to quote them as the very truth of God? There is a great deal that is evidently true and beautiful in them; but it is nevertheless written, (Job xlii. 7), " The Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go, &c." The words of this very Eliphaz are quoted by St. Paul, (1 Cor. iii. 19), "It is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." An inspired Apostle could, under God's direction, distinguish between what was "right" and what was "not right" in these addresses; but how far may we venture, under the circumstances of the case, to say of them, as of God's own truth, "It is written?”

THE CASE OF THE REV. J. SHORE; AND REMARKS BY BISHOP HOPKINS ON THE RENUNCIATION OF HOLY ORDERS.

For the Christian Observer.

THE question whether a clergyman of the Church of England may renounce his orders, and use himself as a layman, (for so are accounted by the English law those who are not of the Established Communion), has recently been adjudicated upon in a legal decision.

A suit had been instituted in the Court of Queen's Bench, calling upon Mr. Barnes, as the promoter of a suit in the Arches Court against the Rev. James Shore, to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue to prevent that Court from proceeding any further in the suit. The Duke of Somerset having determined to endow a chapel at Bridgetown, in the parish of Berry Pomeroy in Devonshire, Mr. Shore was appointed to be the clergyman, and received a license from the Bishop of Exeter, upon the nomination of the Rev. Mr. Edwards, then Vicar of the parish. Mr. Edwards having died, was succeeded by Mr. Brown,

who continued in the vicarage until 1843, when he was succeeded by Mr. Cosens, between whom and Mr. Shore, as well as between Mr. Shore and the Bishop, there arose a discussion touching the necessity of Mr. Shore's having a new license from the Bishop, to be founded upon a new nomination by Mr. Cosens. Mr. Cosens declining to give the nomination, the Bishop, on the 7th of March, 1844, revoked the licence which he had originally given, and monished Mr. Shore not to officiate any longer in the chapel; which, though licensed by the Bishop, was not consecrated. Preceding this monition, the chapel, by the direction of the Duke of Somerset, had been registered under the 52d Geo. III. chap. 155, as a place of meeting for a congregation of Protestant Dissenters; and on the 16th of March Mr. Shore subscribed before a magistrate the oaths and declarations provided by the Registration Act. As Mr. Shore continued, after the monition, to officiate in the chapel, the Bishop of Exeter, in May 1845, instituted proceedings, under the Church Discipline Act, against him in the Arches Court of Canterbury, charging that he, being a priest ordained in the Established Church, had offended against the laws ecclesiastical, by publicly performing the Divine offices, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, in an unconsecrated building, after the revocation of the license, and in contempt of the monition which had been issued by the Bishop. In answer, Mr. Shore alleged that he had seceded from the Church of England upon conscientious grounds; that he had proved such secession by taking the necessary oaths before a magistrate; that the building had been registered as a place of meeting for Protestant Dissenters; and that the whole subject was therefore, by virtue of these facts, and the effect of the Toleration Act, taken out of the jurisdiction of the Bishop. This defence having been overruled in the Ecclesiastical Court, Mr. Shore applied to the Court of Queen's Bench in November, 1845, for a rule calling on Mr. Barnes, the secretary to the Bishop, to show cause why writ should not issue to prohibit the further progress of the suit in the Arches' Court.

Lord Denman has delivered judgment. His Lordship observed that, from the circumstances above stated, the jurisdiction of the Bishop over Mr. Shore was undoubted. Mr. Shore was, according to the common law, subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop; and the only question was, whether he was released from that subjection by the operation of any statute. The statute 52 Geo. III. did not touch the present case. Mr. Shore must show, first, that he was properly designated as a Protestant Dissenter; and, secondly, that the suit which he asked this Court to prohibit had been instituted upon the ground of his not conforming to the Established Church. With regard to the first point, it had been contended, that any person who declared himself to be a Dissenter, became such by virtue of the declaration. The Court, however, could not assent to such a principle, and was of opinion, that a person circumstanced as Mr. Shore was, could not, in that manner, divest himself of the character which had been impressed upon him by his ordination as a priest, upon receiving which he had sworn to render an honest and conscientious obedience to the lawful commands of his ecclesiastical superior. From the vow which he had made upon that occasion he could be released only by the same authority by which the obligation was imposed. The Seventy-sixth Canon expressly asserted their incapacity, and declared that nobody who had been ordained could voluntarily relinquish the character imposed by the