ducted otherwise. And in like manner, if any Christian believes that no eating of bread and drinking of wine, however solemnly and reverentially, in remembrance of Christ, can be "the Lord's Supper," unless connected with a certain ceremony performed by a person holding a certain office, he cannot of course be expected, under any circumstances, to attend what professes to be a celebration of it, without these adjuncts. But very few Christians, it is to be hoped, would go quite so far as this. And if there are any who do so, it only makes it the more necessary for us to show that we have no participation in such unscriptural views, and that we regard "Rubrics " and "Canons " as simply matters of order and arrangement within our own family circle, and by no means as laying down principles of universal obligation. When the joint communion is held in one of our churches, the form of administration is that prescribed by the church of England; when in a dissenting chapel, that which is customary there; when on neutral ground, that which is thought to be most convenient and appropriate under the circumstances. But in every case the ordinance is precisely the same, wholly unaffected by any of these varying acci

dents.

Again, it is objected that, inasmuch as clergymen of the church of England cannot legally administer the Lord's Supper in dissenting chapels, nor even in company with dissenters, on neutral ground; and dissenting ministers are equally debarred from administering it in consecrated buildings belonging to the established church, one or the other must necessarily for the time sink his official character, and attend the service simply as a believer in Christ. And are we not all constantly doing thus? What minister ever imagines, when he sits amongst a congregation to hear a sermon, or goes as a silent worshipper to a prayer-meeting, or joins the communicants as a stranger in any place he may be visiting, that he is abandoning his proper position? To refuse to be present at any service in which we are not allowed to officiate, would be the pride of office with a vengeance.

But this last objection opens a question of some importance, namely, What do we mean by "administering" the Lord's Supper? The word is apt, unless carefully explained, to convey the idea of there being two parties in the transaction-givers and receivers, clergy and laity. Now if this be so, the officiating minister must belong to both parties, inasmuch as the first person to whom he administers is himself. But our church expresses it much more accurately, when she orders that "the minister shall first receive the communion in both kinds himself." If, therefore, the people receive it from the minister, from whom does he receive it? Clearly both receive it from the same Giver, the Lord of the feast Himself, and "all they are brethren," joint-partakers of the same bread and wine. And herein this sacrament differs essentially from the other. In baptism there are two parties, the baptizer and the baptized; because the candidate is an applicant for something not already possessed. But in the Lord's Supper we meet together to enjoy what we do in common possess; and no official need be present (except as a matter of order and arrangement in any particular church) to unlock the storehouse for us, or impart strengthening virtue to its rich provisions. In almost every church, perhaps in every one, it is deemed

appropriate solemnly to set apart the elements about to be used, for that sacred purpose-in a word, to consecrate them. If the ceremony is to be performed "decently and in order," some previous arrangement must be made as to the person who shall do this. But there is no necessity, as far as the Christian ordinance is concerned, (whatever by-laws separate churches may make for themselves,) that he shall be one who holds any particular office; the only essential requirement being, that he must be one of the communicants, that he may act as their representative in the matter; and the fact of any given person being so appointed, in nowise separates him from them, quoad the ordinance: he consecrates for them, and communicates with them. As to the handing of the elements to the communicants, that is a mere mechanical act which may be done by any person or persons whatever, and in any reverent way whatever. Our Master himself effectually blessed them, and gave them to His disciples, once for all we have only to pass them on to one another.

:

I cannot but regard, therefore, the open communions which have been held on common ground, not only as a valuable means of cultivating and exhibiting brotherly love, but as an important testimony to the purity and simplicity of this great Christian ordinance. In our own churches we are obliged to celebrate it in conjunction with certain forms. These may be very suitable and edifying; but it is well that people should be taught to distinguish between what is divine and what is human, and to let their attachment to the national church rest on safer grounds than a blind superstitious reverence for every pin in its machinery, as if it had been put together by some inspired Bezaleel and Aholiab, after a pattern shown upon the Mount. I remain, Mr. Editor, yours very faithfully,

London, Feb., 1861.

SAMUEL MINTON.

BEARD'S HISTORY OF PORT ROYAL.

Port Royal: A contribution to the History of Religion and Literature in France. By Charles Beard, B.A. Two volumes, crown 8vo. Longman and Co., London, 1861.

THE names of Port Royal and the Jansenists come to us like voices from the tomb. They seem to belong to an older world, with which we have no communion. A century in France removes institutions, men, and controversies, to a greater distance than three hundred years in England. If time is measured by the succession of ideas and events, the intervening period is even greater. Revolutions have been piled upon each other. Within a century the work of ages has been destroyed and reconstructed, and torn down again, and built up after another fashion, again torn down and again rebuilt. The old French character is lost, and our interest in it is that of the antiqua

rian wandering amidst ruins over which the plough has long since passed, and which no living man remembers.

Mr. Beard has written well; he is thoroughly master of his subject; he has evidently brought to it a mind of superior power. But in the present feverish state of public thought and feeling, it will be no slender triumph if he should succeed in fixing attention upon this old-world subject.

And yet it is one that ought not to be forgotten. If we are not mistaken, it has at this moment a peculiar importance. It demands to be heard. These voices from the dead are prophetic utterances. Upon the plains of Italy a drama, one of the most important ever witnessed, is being played out, and the whole world are the spectators. What will be the issue? There are those who think they foresee the reformation of the рарасу. There are those who dread the admixture with it of some gospel truth; enough to debase the gospel, not enough to regenerate the papacy. Port Royal dissipates the fond delusion of the one and the groundless apprehensions of the other. The papacy is incapable of reformation. truth cannot find a lodgment in the lap of the "Mother of abominations." There can be no compromise, because there can be no real amendment.

Bible

There is something terrible in the providence so frequently observed in the case of desperately bad men. As they plunge deeper and deeper into sin, God's invitations to repentance become more touching and more paternal. They become still more hardened, and at last, even in this world, they affix the awful brand upon themselves; "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction." Thus, too, God has dealt with "the man of sin" himself. In the dark ages he was placed under a rugged discipline suited to his nature. The pope was more than once an exile; his kingdom was invaded by barbarians who professed to be his spiritual subjects. Then the voice of a German monk was heard, and the defection of the Germans followed. Then, after many a provocation, the haughty defiance of Henry VIII., and the secession of his kingdom. But all were ineffective. The papacy was obdurate. The Council of Trent is her own witness. There, in a court of her own choice, she states her own case; there she is condemned by her own approvers. No other testimony is wanted. She has changed the truth of God into a lie. She has set her own hand and seal to the deed, which will for ever remain a witness against her in this world and that which is to come. But even yet, the long-suffering of Heaven was not exhausted. A protest against her impieties issues from the meekest, the most devoted, of her own children. No rude German nails the insulting thesis on her gates. No lordly monarch defies her through his ambassador in the Vatican. It is now the still small voice whispered from the

trembling lips of the recluses of Port Royal. Never had a great delinquent a more gentle remonstrance, and yet more faithful. But it was once more despised, and Port Royal perished. It seems to have been her last warning; and her "judgment, now of a long time lingereth not, and her damnation slumbereth not."

The monastery of Port Royal was founded in the year 1204, by Matthieu, first Lord of Marli, of the noble house of Montmorençi. It stood in a lonely valley near Chevreuse, six leagues from Paris, till the year 1713, when it was levelled with the ground through the revenge and rage of the Jesuits. In 1602 Angélique Arnauld became the abbess. From this period, Mr. Beard undertakes to write its history: from this period it is, that its wonderful influence on French religion and literature begins; and from this point we take up the story with Mr. Beard to guide us. Mrs. Schimmelpenninck first led the way and drew attention to the subject thirty years ago. But her work, which has lately been reprinted, though useful in its day, by no means renders a more complete history superfluous; still it remains a singular and honourable circumstance, that an English lady should have led the way in the modern investigation of a most important period in the history of religion and literature in France.

Angélique Arnauld was the daughter of an advocate whose orations were once admired. Her family had long been eminent in France; its wider renown in other lands is owing to herself, her sister, and her not less distinguished brother, the celebrated Antoine Arnauld, the friend of Pascal and Nicole. Through a shameful abuse of court influence, she was installed abbess when not yet eleven years of age. She had not a spark of religious feeling, and for some years she felt the restraint intolerable. She would have run away and taken refuge with her Huguenot aunts at Rochelle, had not a dangerous illness intervened and prevented the fulfilment of the project. And yet the child abbess, except her comparative seclusion from the world, was under no great restraint: her nuns were as giddy as herself; their dress was fashionable; their conduct, to say the least, was frivolous; and on religious subjects, a degree of ignorance disgraceful even in a nunnery prevailed. The offices of the church were hurried over with negligence, and then a walk, or a game at cards, filled up the day. Their confessor, good easy man, was a Bernardine monk, so ignorant, that he was not able to repeat the Lord's prayer in French; did not know a word of the catchism, and never opened any book except his breviary. His amusement was the chase. For more than forty years no sermon had been preached at Port Royal, except at seven or eight professions. The communion was administered only at the great festivals; and even of these, the purifica

tion was excepted, because it was also the time of carnival, when the whole house was busy in preparing a masquerade, in which the confessor and the servants all took their part. At fifteen la mère Angélique begins to display her character, and to reform her nuns. Cards give way to books; the offices of the church are performed with more decorum, and the recreations are harmless and more discreet: still there is no religion. The abbess herself studies ancient history and the ponderous romances of the day, and the only instruction which she obtains in view of her first communion, is furnished by a book of prayers lent her by a poor cobbler who mends her shoes. Yet at this very time, in 1605, Nicholas Boucherat, abbot of Citeaux, inspects Port Royal, and leaves a carte de visite, testifying to his entire satisfaction with its discipline, and ordering only that the number of nuns shall be increased.

Thus life was dreamed away till Angélique was now eighteen. The carnival of 1608 had been celebrated by the sisterhood of Port Royal, with its usual follies. At the approach of Lent they ceased; and the young abbess, unwilling at such a season to read romances, and having no taste for tedious manuals of devotion, applied to her friend Madame de Jumeauville, an inmate of the house, for some pious work which might help to while away the weary season. A book of meditations, which some Capuchin who had preached at Port Royal had left behind him, was given to her; she read it with attention, and it made some impression on her mind. A few days after, she heard a sermon from another Capuchin monk in the convent church; the subject was, the humiliation of Christ in His incar

nation :

"How he treated it we know not. Angélique herself ascribes the effect of his discourse upon her mind less to any eloquence of human lips, than to the fact that the moment of Divine grace had now arrived; and at such seasons, a word, a thought, a look, a gesture, the meaning of which is altogether hidden from others, may be sufficient to unseal the fountain of the soul. The hour of the service, the dimlylighted church, the solemn subject, suggesting in connection with the season of the year, the last sufferings of Christ, the effects of recent illness, may all be adduced by those who love to connect spiritual facts with natural causes, and all accepted by those who see in natural causes only the instruments of God. Be this as it may, a deep and enduring impression was produced. The abbess seems nevertheless to have distrusted the personal character of the preacher, who, indeed, afterwards gave evidence of loose morals and unstable faith, and abstained from consulting him as to the new thoughts and wishes which filled her mind. She contented herself with thanking him, in company with one of her nuns, and he went on his way into obscurity, all unconscious of the fire which his words had kindled in the heart of the church."

There was here, at least, the beginning of a new life; the