discipline would necessitate a far greater amount of spiritual intercourse than now exists, whatever special form it might be found expedient for it to adopt, whether regular or irregular. Possibly, but this we give as a bare and distant suggestion, for these things must be well considered by men endued with sound wisdom and with honest Protestant zeal-must be thoroughly debated by laity as well as clergy, before they can assume much of a tangible and practical nature-but, just possibly, it might be held expedient eventually that every communicant should see his or her pastor, once a year say, for the purpose of receiving a ticket to admit him or her to communion, so as to afford occasion for direct spiritual intercourse and private spiritual prayer with one and all. Of course, all could not be expected to communicate at any one season of the year: they might be given their choice of three

or more.

Then, to guard against that formalism which is always liable to prove the bane of the most judicious discipline-for nothing earthly, alas, is without its special drawbacks and hindrances-we would have no private absolutions to quiet disturbed, and justly disturbed, consciences with a most powerful soporific; but rather a solemn public service, adjuring all who purpose communicating, by the name and in the presence of their God, to answer these two or more questions, demanding an audible response from all :--first, do you sincerely repent your past sins, putting your whole trust in the redemption wrought for you by your Lord and Saviour, and desiring to abjure those sins for evermore? And, secondly, have you the honest and true intention, so help you God, to keep yourself free from one and all these sins for the future, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ your Saviour? Either privately or publicly (and sometimes both) some such solemn and heart-searching questions might, we should think, be put and answered, and penitents might be admonished at the eleventh hour, even more distinctly if possible, than they are in our present office, rather to incur the consequences of the loss of Church communion than the being "guilty" of the body and blood of Christ our Saviour. We shall not now follow this difficult subject further. Dean Hirscher's testimony as to the fearful working of the confessional can scarcely be too highly valued in the present day. Whatever we may desire of spiritual intercourse, this teaches us distinctly what to shun, and goes some way towards reconciling our minds, at least temporarily, to our present lack of discipline; though we cannot but feel deeply

the grievous scandals consequent on this state of things, especially the almost heathenish condition of mind and heart of the great body of nominal churchmen among the poor of our cities; and, again, the singular self-complacency with which many of our more educated classes have satisfied themselves from year to year, almost to the end of their lives, without participation in the Lord's Supper-without the reception of that means of grace which their Lord has declared to be essential, and which we know to be the chiefest aid afforded us in the warfare against sin.

Hirscher, we may observe, does comment severely on the practice we have condemned-that of teaching the penitent to confess every transgression with all possible details; carried, we cannot but believe unfortunately, to the farthest possible extent by a certain body of religionists within our own Church. Indeed, Dr. Pusey has declared that no confession is possible without it; and, as long as he maintains such a confession to be essential to absolution, we must feel that a positive gulf will lie betwixt him and all sound Churchmen, however earnestly he may seek to bridge it over, and whatever atonement he may endeavour to make on other scores, even by the display of real charity, or by the faithful preaching of "Christ Crucified." The origin of the worst corruptions of the Roman confessional is to be found in that principle-first enunciated, we believe, by the apostate Maskell-that there is no real and valid absolution or ministerial conveyal of pardon to sin without a previous full and particular confession of every sin. We declare this principle, whatever good men may erroneously profess or acknowledge it (truly grieved are we to see such an individual as Mr. Gresley in this predicament)—to be simply and purely Anti-Christian.

And now to continue, and, as soon as may be, conclude these observations-the evils of both bad sacraments (so-called) and of indulgences are forcibly pointed out by Dean Hirscher. His condemnation of the latter, with reference to their effect, is the more powerful, because proceeding from one who appears still to consider them defensible in theory. says:

He

"A further practical and deeply-rooted evil, to which the attention of the Church must be directed, is the idea entertained by the popular mind concerning indulgences. Say what you will, there it remains: the people understand by indulgence the remission of sins. Explain to them that, not the sins, but only the penalties of sins, are affected by indulgencies: very well, it is the penalty, and not the guilt of sin, which the people regard as the important thing; and whatever frees

them from the punishment of sins frees them so far as they care about it from sin itself. The penalty is what they are afraid of. The indulgence, therefore, is the thing for them: it bears the highest value in their estimate; and conversion-earnest conversion, the truc conversion, with its efforts toward a progressive moral purification-this looks lut mean in comparison, when they suppose they can easily relieve themselves of all the consequences of siu by another way."

We need not add to this that, in our judgment, indulgences are altogether indefensible in principle, and indeed, equally blasphemous and absurd inventions. They are founded on an entire misconception of the nature of punishment, which is the consequence of sin, and cannot be remitted unless the sin be thoroughly repented of. To separate the punishment from the sin and remit the latter while the former possibly remains, involves a contradiction in terms; and so much Dean Hirscher in point of fact concedes, though he does not venture to speak quite plainly. But we marvel how, as a thoughtful religious man, he can at all tolerate this assumption of power over the invisible world by the see of Rome-this audacious interference with the prerogatives of Almighty justice-this unreasonable overthrow of Its laws; for if, as Romanists contend, temporal punishment in this world and the world to come be due to remitted sin, in order to purify the sinner's soul, how can such purification be dispensed with by means of a forensic and arbitrary act on the Church's part? It is manifest that to this question no answer can be returned. Indulgences are, we repeat, as absurd, as self-contradictory, as they are profane. Yet the whole modern Romish system, as Dean Hirscher shows, is founded on them: scarcely a prayer is said in that communion but to obtain their benefits: the very house of prayer itself is turned, in a far worse sense than the Jewish temple of old, into a place of merchandise, where every act of faith or utterance of devotion is made a specific object of barter for the remission of present or future punishment. What a system is this! How utterly alien from the spirit of the pure Gospel! How can any one who has ever been an English Churchman be mad enough, and wicked enough, to place his head beneath a yoke like this?

The dean goes on to dwell upon the evils of confraternities, but this is a question which scarcely concerns ourselves direcily. He protests against the idle gaud and pride of Romish worship, with its retinue of officials holding up trains, swinging censers, and bowing to the cast, west, north, and south: not that he objects to beauty in externals-only he considers it should be grave and sober, and not likely to distract the attention of the worshipper. Our cathedral service, as Mr.

VOL. XXXII-II

Coxe says in his admirable introduction, appears, when duly administered, to supply the just medium betwixt German baldness and papal gaud and show. Further, Dean Hirscher observes that saint's-days are often treated as more important in the Roman Church than the highest festivals of Christ himself. We should rather have occasion to complain in our own communion that they were neglected altogether.

The necessity for the amelioration of the clerical order, and due regulation of the preaching function, and other important subjects, receive a passing notice. The use of the rosary-that utterly mechanical contrivance for "vain repetitions, such as the heathen make "-is justly censured. The oversight of young people in places of amusement is recommended, and the desirability urged of maintaining the sanctity of the Lord's-day.

* *

This worthy man-for despite his participation in many Roman errors we cannot but gladly and gratefully acknowledge him as a true Christian brother-concludes with these words:-" But times are earnest. The spirit of God can alone suggest what they require. May it please Him to enlighten the servants of his Gospel; and may they, divesting themselves of the trammels of prejudice, apply themselves to the right understanding of his counsels! * I hold it all important that Christianity should accommodate itself to its modern circumstances, with wise perceptions and judicious adaptations. As for a recurrence to medieval principles and practices, it appears to me a gross and most perilous mistake." Heartily can we echo these last words. To any accommodation, or adaptation, or development, which would in any the slightest degree infringe on the faith once delivered to the saints, we are resolutely opposed; but this is not what Dean Hirscher contemplates. He alludes to the necessity, which we fully recognize, for henceforth giving the educated and communicant laity their full part and share in the shaping of the Church's discipline, and also in the defence and, if need be, the definition of the faith. We had meant to extract Mr. Coxe's admirable account of the working of laity and clergy together in the American synods and convocation, and the mutual benefits resulting from such co-operation; but must content ourselves with referring our readers to this most valuable book, the importance of which can scarcely be overestimated.

"The dry bones shake" indeed, now that this voice has issued forth from the very centre of Romanism. May the blessing of God rest on Dean Hirscher's endeavours, and the process of Catholic reformation be continuous and finally triumphant!

483

:

Notices of Books.

Les Origines de l'Eglise Romaine. Par ANDRE ARCHINARD, Pasteur de l'Eglise de Genève. Paris, 1852. 2 tones. 80.

DURING the last ten or twelve years it has been equally our privilege and our duty to bring before our readers various publications on the all-absorbing controversy with the Church of Rome. And if we again recur to the subject, it is because we believe the interests of true religion and piety, as well as the safety of the empire, are in danger from the old enemy of all truth and liberty-Popery. Besides, as different authors view the unscriptural and anti-scriptural dogmas and practices of the Romish Church under different phases, they all contribute important arguments or facts in defence of the cardinal doctrines and moral precepts of the Gospel, which are worthy of being brought before the public.

The treatise of M. Archinard is the result of most extensive researches, as our readers will readily conclude when we state that the index of authors cited fills not fewer than ten closely printed pages. His object is, not to study the spirit of Catholicism, in its entirety, through all the different phases of its history; but to relate its origin, the evolutions of its hierarchy, and its first relations with the temporal power. There are many topics in the Romish controversy which more directly concern faith and doctrine than this; but we are disposed to think, with M. Archinard, there is not one the discussion of which is more dreaded by the Church of Rome than this. The whole of her system is most closely and admirably connected. It is a chain, the several links of which solidly hold together; and, to the heedless and unthinking majority, there is apparently a perfect solidity. But the question is, to know on what the first links depend; for if they prove destitute of support, however long and beautiful may be the chain, it would remain suspended in vacuo, and would be utterly incapable of sustaining any weight. Hence arises the importance, to every one who wishes thoroughly to know the Romish Church and rightly to appreciate the value of its pretensions, of studying the origin of them. Historically speaking, this is everything. Besides, these historical studies have the advantage of permitting a calm, impartial, and (if we may be allowed the expression) an impersonal examination of the controverted questions.