We present this long extract as being, both for its substance and for its source, worthy at least of very respectful consideration among Congregationalists; and considering the complication of our Cis-Atlantic usage with the miserable corruption of imposed creeds, its claim upon the attention of American Congregationalists is a very special one. It is not strange that when points like this have been raised in the course of sectarian controversy, or thrust at us by the shrewd, cynical wit of Dr. Holmes, they have failed of being very seriously pondered. The ab hoste doceri is doubtless right and noble, but it is not, ordinarily, human. We have here the counsels of an undoubted friend; and from these it is easier to learn.

The whole case, both pro and contra, will be before our readers if we add, from the second volume of Ecclesia, the remarks of that singularly acute disputant and lucid writer, the Rev. R. W. Dale, evidently, though not expressly, directed against the very essay by Mr. Rogers, in the first volume, from which we have been quoting.* His historical statement of English Congregationalist usage on the point in question is to us not the least interesting part of what he has to say.

"The customs of our churches vary; fifty years ago it was not unusual to require the applicant for membership to appear at the church meeting, and to declare publicly his loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ; and every member present had the right to propose any question to him relating to his personal religious history. In many churches, till very recently, every applicant for membership was expected to address a letter to the church containing a profession of his religious faithnot of his theological creed-and some information concerning the circumstances and influences which led him to decide to live a Christian life. It is still usual for one or two of the members of the church to visit the candidate before he is received into fellowship; and it is on their testimony and that of the pastor that the church determines whether he shall be received or rejected. The "visitors" are sometimes deacons, sometimes private members of the church. . . . In nearly all cases, the candidate is "proposed" at one church meeting, and his application is voted upon at the next, the month's interval being intended to afford opportunity for information to be sent to the pastor if it should happen that any of the members know that the candidate is an unfit person to be received into membership...

"These practices look very much more formidable on paper than they are in reality. Nearly always, before there is any application for membership, the rela

The title of Mr. Dale's Essay is "The Idea of the Church in Relation to Modern Congregationalism." An Article from his pen, in the first volume, on "The Real Presence," is an admirable piece of theologizing.

tions between the pastor and the applicant are so intimate that a special interview is unnecessary. "Visitors" who have any tact and delicacy satisfy themselves of the religious earnestness of candidates without any formal examination. Looking back over a ministry of eighteen years, I cannot recall more than two or three cases in which what is sometimes called the "ordeal" of admission has prevented persons from applying for membership."

"Not more than two or three" would seem to be two or three too many souls to repel from Christian communion by any merely arbitrary and human tradition-if it is merely arbitrary, which is the point in question. "One of these little ones" is more than the chief Pastor is willing to lose. But we would suggest that the largest mischief from such bars to church communion is done, not in the case of those few who come almost to the point of approaching the Lord's table, and turn back, and of whom a single pastor recalls two or three in eighteen years; but in the case of the many who are hindered by these usages from coming near the church to begin with, and whom the pastor cannot recall, because he never hears of them.

Mr. Dale proceeds to consider "the validity of the grounds. on which a change is demanded." We state the two points of his answer in brief, trusting to the intelligence of the reader, or referring him to the essay itself, for details.

1. It is said that our customs are not sanctioned by the practice of the apostles. Granted. But in the apostolic days the circumstances of disfavor, and sometimes of persecution, in which the church was held, made inquiries like these needless.

2. "It is also alleged against the traditional usage of Congregationalism, that the church ought not to assume the responsi bility of affirming, even by implication, the sincerity of a man's religious faith." But there are few ministers who do not solemnly remind the new member that the vote of the church conveys no infallible assurance of eternal life. No man's doubts of his own salvation are ever suppressed by the fact that his name is on the church roll. Further, it is impossible for a Congregational Church to escape the responsibility of recogni zing the personal religious faith of its members. A man cannot enter into the church, without being received by the church. The act is a reciprocal one.

Let us conclude these extracts with the sound and instructive paragraph in which Mr. Dale presents his own strictures on the

method of administration of the usages which on the whole he would have preserved:

"The real ground on which, as it seems to me, the customs of Congregational Churches are open to objection, is this:-they appear to imply that as soon as a man has received the life of God, the life will so distinctly reveal itself in new forms of thought and emotion, that there will never be any difficulty in recognizing its presence. This is a very grave mistake. The first movements of the supernatural life are generally very obscure. It must gather strength before it can manifest itself in an unequivocal manner. In innumerable cases the consciousness of regeneration does not immediately follow trust in Christ. We rely upon Him for redemption from this present evil world; but very often, months and even years pass by before there is any vivid sense of actual redemption. And yet it is certain that although the reality of the new birth may not at once be capable of direct verification either to the regenerate person himself or to others, every man who trusts in Christ receives immediately both the pardon of sin and the gift of eternal life. But the usages of Congregational Churches appear to suggest that faith in Christ and the regeneration, which, as we know, is granted in immediate response to faith, are not adequate qualifications for church membership,—that there must also be certain developments of the supernatural life, sufficiently determinate and sufficiently obvious to demonstrate their supernatural origin to other Christian people. We wait till the regenerate children of God are able to speak and to walk, before we are willing to receive them into the divine "household." All that we have a right to ask for is an assurance of personal trust in Christ; wherever this exists, our own faith should make us certain that whether or not we can discern the signs of regeneration, the man is really regenerate."—Ecclesia, II, 384.

ART. IX.-NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Dr. DÖLLINGER has been thought by some to be over-timid in regard to the bearings of the Infallibility dogma on civil society and the rights of the State. But here comes the Dublin Review (for Jan., 1872), the able organ of the British Ultramontanes, which boldly, frankly-we might say, audaciously-avows that what Döllinger apprehends really follows from the new dogma! The bull unam sanctam of Boniface, asserting the lordship of the Pope over princes and over every human creature, is declared to be ex cathedra, and so binding on the conscience! That is, the enormous pretensions of the medieval Popes to a control over governments, are clothed with the attribute of infallibility,-pretensions which Catholics, not liberals only but moderate conservatives also have professed to consider obsolete and of no force. The organs of the Pope sanction the inferences of Döllinger on this point. Moreover, the Dublin Review, speaking of religious persecution, or laws for the punishment of heresy, says (p. 2): "It is undeniable that for the existence of such laws the Church is mainly responsible." These laws, then, must not be condemned. "The Holy See," says the Dublin reviewer," has condemned the following proposition, that the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church" (p. 190). The bull of Gregory XVI, the Mirari vos, denouncing the free reading and circulation of the Bible, is also ex cathedra. These bulls of Boniface and Gregory are affirmed, correctly as we think, to have been addressed to the whole Church. Now what say our American Ultramontanes and Infalliblists to these avowals of the Dublin Review? Why should not they be as frank and outspoken as their Dublin contemporary? We want them to tell us what they think of the Bull unam sanctam? Is it ex cathedra-for the whole Church? Is its doctrine binding on the consciences of faithful Catholics or not?

The Contemporary Review for February has an Article by Mr. Ffoulkes, who went into the Romish Church from the Anglican, and has now gone back again to the Anglican fold, on John Henry Newman's recent reprint of his "Essays," which were writ

are now republished, with annotations for the correction of errors, retractations after the manner of the great Augustine; though retractations, it should not be forgotten, signifies not "retractions," but "reconsiderations." Mr. Ffoulkes was driven back from Romanism by a study of the Greek controversies, and of the history of other so-called schismatical bodies. He still holds to his theory of priestly succession; but with Pusey and his party considers that "Catholic" comprehends the Greeks and Anglicans, not less than the Latins who acknowledge the primacy of the Pope. The Dublin Review, in its complimentary notice of Newman's volume, regrets that the essay on Lamennais, which reflects on the Pope's temporal power, should be reprinted with so little correction. It is a hard thing for a man like Newman to accommodate his thinking to ultramontane orthodoxy. He is a singular example of the power of a single idea or conviction to govern intellect and conscience. Starting with the fixed belief in a visbile, external, organized Church, he looks for a society answering to his ideal, and finds it in the Roman communion. Misgivings, difficulties, historical perplexities, suggestions of conscience and of taste, are counterbalanced and neutralized by this one notion of an external spiritual commonwealth. Yet it is hard for so intellectual a man to keep his reason in chains. There will be some point where symptoms of rebellion will appear.

The same number of the Contemporary Review contains an Article by Mr. John Hunt on Rationalism and Ritualism in the English Church. Mr. Hunt has published an excellent book on the "History of Religious Thought in England," the second vol. ume of which has just appeared. He knows well the history of Anglican theology, and, among other valuable services, incidentally exposes the false readings of that history which have been put forth by the Puseyite school. There are no more disingenuous perversions of theological history than the attempts of Pusey, Newman, and others, to interpret the fathers of the English Church into a conformity with " Anglo-Catholic" themes.

Speaking of the Roman Catholics, we are reminded of a matter on which we sought for light in the last number of the NEW ENGLANDER (Jan., 1872). We there compared the Creed, in the Récit d'une Sour, with the same as translated and published by the Catholic Publication Society in New York. The original