sight in the popular books published to impose upon protestants. Thus, in the old edition of " A Papist Misrepresented and Represented," in the article on Indulgences (page 12) it is said—

"He (the papist) firmly believes that no sins can be forgiven without a true and hearty repentance; but that still there is a power in the church of granting indulgences, by which, as he is taught in his catechism, nothing more is meant than a releasing, to such as are truly penitent, the debt of temporal punishment which remained due on account of those sins, which, as to the guilt and eternal punishment, had been already remitted by repentance and confession. For we see in the case of King David, 2 Samuel, xii. 10-14, that the debt of the temporal punishment is not always remitted when the guilt of the sin is remitted; and as the church of God from the beginning was ever convinced of this truth, therefore, besides the hearty repentance and confession which she insisted upon in order for the discharge of the guilt of sin, she also required severe penances (sometimes of three, seven, ten years, or more) for the discharge of the debt of the temporal punishment due to divine justice. Now the releasing or moderating, for just causes, these penalties incurred by sin, is called an indulgence."

Here is not one word said about purgatory or any punishment after death. Advantage is taken of the ambiguity of the expression, " temporal punishment," which a protestant is sure to understand of punishment in this life. This punishment is also described as the three, seven, or ten years' penance imposed by the church. In fact, the unwary protestant is led to believe that an indulgence is a mere relaxation of a canonical sentence. In the new edition published at Edinburgh, 1836, and which has been extensively circulated, this false impression is strongly confirmed by the addition of the following

note :

"Thus, an indulgence, instead of being a pardon for sins past, present, or to come, is no pardon of sin in any shape, but merely a releasing of the temporal punishment due for sin after its guilt has been remitted. The catholic church (says (sic) the British catholic bishops, in their declaration) rejects with abhorrence the imputation, that by granting an indulgence she grants permission to commit sin, or a pardon for sins to come.' The principal protestant churches have always claimed the privilege of inflicting penances upon their members, and have exercised the right of dispensing with them on certain conditions; in other words, they have adopted in part the canonical practice respecting indulgences. The following article in the canons of the church of England prescribes the mode of applying the money paid for indulgences :'Neque fiat posthac solemnis penitentiæ commutatio nisi rationibus, gravioribusque de causis, &c. Deinde quod mulcta illa pecuniaria vel in relevam pauperum, vel in alios pios usus erogetur.' (Articuli pro clero, 1584, Sparrow, p. 194.) The next article is, De moderandis quibusdam indulgentiis pro celebratione matrimonii,' &c. (p. 195.) The indulgences were renewed in the synod held in London in 1597, (Sparrow, pp. 248, 252.) See also a canon (14) made in the synod of 1640, (Sparrow, p. 368.) The cutty-stool is familiar to Scotch Presbyterians at least. It is described by Sir John Sinclair as a kind of pillory in a church, erected for the punishment of those who have transgressed in the article of chastity, and on that account are liable to the censures of the church. By the acts of the general assembly of the church of Scotland, persons so offending are ordained to stand, attired in sackcloth, in the church during divine service, for a succession of Sundays, varying in number according to the nature and frequency of the crime; but they may purchase a dispensation from this public act of penance, or, in other words,

may obtain an indulgence, by paying a sum of money to the kirk-session, for the use of the poor.”—(pp. 34-36.)

Here the protestant is led to suppose that a popish indulgence is nothing different from the relaxation granted by the church of England, or by the kirk of Scotland. Punishment in the world to come is kept entirely out of sight; and a similar clever suppressio veri may be seen in the catechism published by Keating and Browne, London, 1819, at page 158, &c.; and in "The Poor Man's Controversy," pp. 79 and 80. In their theological works, however, it is plainly taught, that this temporal punishment includes the torments of purgatory; and in the Bavarian pastoral letter before us it is as clearly stated, that " all these indulgences may be offered up also for the benefit of the deceased." It is therefore a base and unworthy imposition which is in those popular popish books practised upon unwary protestants. The doctrine of the church of Rome, so far from agreeing with that of protestants on this subject, is as different as it can possibly be; and the authors and circulators of these books can scarcely be regarded, even by the most extensive charity, in any other light than that of men who have no religion, no love of truth, nor fear of God; but who, for mere temporal and worldly purposes, desire to make proselytes, and for this purpose are ready deliberately to misrepresent the doctrines of the system which they profess.

It is evident also that the pretence that an indulgence is in no sense a remission of sin is a mere quibble. That which the mass of mankind care about is deliverance from the penal consequences of sin, and this is what they understand by forgiveness. Now here it is plainly promised that the torments of purgatory shall be remitted to those who fulfil the conditions propounded to the members of St. Willibald's society; that, therefore, which people in general desire as forgiveness is here offered them at a very cheap rate. The salvo which the church of Rome employs,-namely, that an indulgence can be had only by those who are in a state of grace,-amounts in fact to nothing, for every one who dies in communion with the church is regarded as being in a state of grace; there is, therefore, just the same occasion given for gross abuse amongst the ignorant and uneducated. Such persons have here an encouragement to persevere in sin, for by confession and submission to the church they escape the eternal punishment; and if members of St. Willibald's society, it is not necessary even to endure the pains of purgatory.

The terms of these indulgences also afford full scope for the employment of all the arguments used at the Reformation. It may be asked how the church knows who is in purgatory and who not, for without this knowledge the offering of indulgences for any particular deceased person seems rather out of place. It may also be fairly inquired why, if the Roman church has the power of delivering unhappy souls from purgatory, she does not proclaim a jubilee in the regions of Hades, and that without money and without price? This new specimen certainly still conveys the old idea, that "the treasure of the church" was given not for purposes of mercy, but as a mere measure of finance, as a capital wherewith to raise money.

127

A LASCO'S LITURGY.

(Concluded from vol. xv., p. 530.)

It was suggested in a former paper that Cranmer may have been made a tool of by other parties in obtaining for the foreigners resident in London an ecclesiastical establishment which he cannot have approved.* If the ordination of those admitted into their church made this probable, the opinions they were pledged to promulgate rendered it more so. Setting aside, however, the most important question that can be addressed to a pastor in his office, "By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority ?"-viewing the whole system merely as experimental, its working does not seem to have deserved applause nor imitation. Notwithstanding those talents for government which Cranmer admired in A Lasco, dissensions rent the community over which he presided, even in that short period which intervened between 1550 and the death of Edward. Notwithstanding the inquisitorial and scandal-breeding process by which ministers of the word were elected,+ one at least who passed the ordeal dishonoured his profession; and when the survivors of the original church, applying to Elizabeth for a renewal of their charter, only obtained a less ample settlement by electing Grindal superintendent, they quickly discovered that no such officer was requisite, and their notice of future bishops of London was confined to congratulatory addresses on their consecration.‡ Not more admirable is the tone of many passages in the book which contains their liturgy. The ill disguised contempt for our church, which too confidingly welcomed an intruder as a sister, appeared in A Lasco's Prayer-book before it burst in invective from his pulpit. The complacent assumption that they, and they only, have the undoubted sense of scripture with them, which disfigures the worst theology of the puritans, is conspicuous in that production. On such and such points there is a variety of practice-some churches do one thing and some another-for them, they condemn none except where there are evident tokens of anti-christian superstition; but having freedom to choose among many ceremonies, and desiring to promote all possible edification, they had determined to be guided by the word of God. That those sacred oracles spoke a different language in their ear, and that of the Anglican reformers, the following extracts from their baptismal and communion services may suffice to prove; at the same time it must be allowed, the differences will not always be found where more recent neologists would expect it.

The former service is clear enough as to baptismal regeneration; and although it appears sometimes to lose sight of the benefit done to the baptized in that conferred upon the universal church, there is no

The writer has seen it stated that Ridley remonstrated against this measure. He viewed this setting up of an imperium in imperio-altar against altar-in the same light with Grindal, under Elizabeth; and that which Laud abolished, he endeavoured to prevent. The reference, however, has been mislaid, and the recollection must stand for as much as it is worth.

+ Strype, Mem. 11, i. 378.

For an account of some endeavours to restore this church to the bishop of the diocese, see Life of Parker, ii, 77.

apparent intention to overstep the limits of orthodoxy. It commences with a satisfactory reference to the grace of baptism, and proceeds to state the qualifications expected from such as should bring their children to the font. Then follows an admonition on the importance of duly administering this rite "without any profanation of the divine institute." It declares" that baptism appertains not only to the present infants, but to the universal church-that we are cleansed by the cleansing of each other-that our purity flows from the communication of Christ's merit, glory, and justification, (afterwards explained as his imputed righteousness, and therefore, one would suppose, not communicated.) This purity we are bound not to sully by returning to the filthiness of sin. Then, having assigned reasons for infant baptism, the minister prayed:

"God Almighty and eternal, merciful Father, who hast taught us, by thine only son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, to call on thee in all our matters, and hast promised to hear us when we ask in his name; we beseech thee to look upon this assemblage of thy family, proceeding to administer the baptism instituted by thy Son, and on this our offspring, presented to thee in the midst of our church, of which thou hast testified thou art its God; and it hath pleased thee to embrace and bless it. Will, by thy Holy Spirit, to govern us and our seed, so that we may increase from day to day more and more in the true and healthful knowledge of thee, and of ourselves, to the end that all may know that thou art truly our God and the God of our children; and, likewise, that we and our seed may be thy people in Jesus Christ, thy well-beloved Son, with whom, and the Holy Spirit, thou livest and reignest one God in three persons, blessed for ever."

It was then publicly demanded of those who brought the children for baptism, especially the father-I. Whether they were the seed of the church-II. Whether they consented to the doctrine they had heard of baptism and its ministry, that our infants, who by nature are, like ourselves, children of wrath and death, being now embraced with us in the divine alliance by the love of Christ, they ought to be sealed by the baptism instituted by Christ, which is the seal of justification and acceptation-III. Whether they promised to instruct the children in the knowledge of God. These questions being affirmatively answered, the minister aspersed each child's forehead, and said,

"N., I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ sign thee and us all with the gift of regeneration and justification in Christ, by his Holy Spirit, unto eternal life."

The minister and congregation then joined in this thanksgiving:"Oh Father Almighty, we render thee thanks by Jesus Christ, thy Son, who, delivering us and our seed from death eternal, hast finally brought us to eternal life by the witness of baptism, by the free cleansing of us all in the blood of thine only Son; we humbly beseech thee, by the same Son, that it may please thee henceforth to govern these infants, who are wholly thine by the witness of this baptism, and enrich them by thy salutary gift when they shall reach years of discretion, so that they may reverently acknowledge this thy bounty and

eternal mercy towards them and us; and that finally they may live in all holiness and righteousness under the conduct of our universal king and bishop, who is with Thee and the Holy Spirit truly one, and eternal God blessed for ever."

An address by the minister, a psalm, and benediction, conclude this service. That for the communion is prefaced by a long essay, pointing out corruptions of the original institution; assigning reasons for commemorating it once in a month, and excluding all such as did not comply with certain conditions imposed on communicants; blessing God that they had abandoned all relics and mummeries of popery ; and since they had been spared the trouble of destroying the altar, that pious work having been accomplished previous to their taking possession of the church, they kept its purity inviolate, using neither mystical nor magic vestments, wax-candles, torches, copes, chasubles, nor surplices. This conduct it was needless to vindicate, since all good men knew that such things contributed nothing to the virtue of the sacrament; and, as they nourished pride and superstition, were better taken away. Sufficient for them was a table in the midst of the church, covered with a napkin, where the minister and people might sit and communicate.

It would seem, however, that this was touching upon a tender point. There were even at this early period archetypes of Travers, who chose to administer the sacrament, not as Christ did, but as they supposed he ought to have kept the passover, who induced their congregations to partake standing before the table, or in passing from one side to the other. The matter was to be argued with them as well as those who instinctively knelt where they owned their Saviour's especial presence. Still they had but one rule, A Lasco told them; they were bound to follow their Lord's example in their ministry, and no one could deny that he sat at supper. It was right to believe that no action of his was performed in vain, and it would be asserting as much of his attitude if we did not learn of him to sit on this occasion. Sitting, moreover, was appropriate to the Christian sacrament, as standing was at the passover. Christ regards us as friends; friends sit, servants stand at a banquet; finally, that this posture was positively enjoined in the words "do this in remembrance of me." Surely it was unkind in Bucer, shortly after this was written, and before it was printed, to pronounce that we were not bound to imitate Christ's action, inasmuch as he lay down; even though he did not point out that this gesture was equivocal, and might signify social ease or prostrate devotion.

Next follows a discourse on the duty of self-examination, concluding with threatenings of divine vengeance against those foreigners who should refuse to join themselves to the chartered church; and then a catechism, which every one was required to learn and answer before communicating. How far any could have complied with this condition who felt that they were walking tremblingly by faith and not by

For a specimen of A Lasco's mode of arguing against these abominations, see Strype, Mem. II. ii. 34.