ficulty are connected with this point of relaxation. If repudiation of a new union, as well as contrition, is recognized, it is obvious that a total rupture of the new relations may be fraught with greater evils than would flow from its continuance. Cases must arise which will press upon the judgment, and beat upon the heart of a minister, awed at the thought that he may be barring the gates of mercy upon a supplicant. But while this will teach all caution and all tenderness, it must not teach forgetfulness of an offence committed or shared in, which violates the holy command and law of Christian marriage.

One case has fallen within the writer's knowledge where an exception was deemed justifiable. A man who had obtained a divorce in another State for some slight ground, removed into New York, and, by fraudulently concealing his divorce, and representing himself as single, deceived a woman into marriage with him. She had been a communicant. Upon discovery of the facts, she separated from him. There was no child of this marriage. The point seemed clear. It was discussed, What should be the course if there had been a child, and the wife was unwilling to separate? and the opinion was, that she should not be repelled.

Another case has been presented, substantially as follows: Married persons reside within a State, by the law of which an absolute divorce is allowed for desertion for a certain period. The husband, by being seen with women of, notorious ill character, frequenting disreputable places, and other conduct, raises a strong presumption of adultery, and confesses it to the wife. He then leaves her for the specified period. She obtains a sentence of divorce for this desertion, and afterward marries. She has been a communicant, or is not otherwise unfit for the rite.

The first thought is, that here the woman has availed herself of an unscriptural ground of divorce to release herself from a hateful union. A limited separation would have relieved her from her bondage, though the marriage would not be annulled. Even in States where no such separation is known, her absolute divorce for desertion, if not followed by marriage, would be justifiable.

We may notice (not as decisive, but not irrelevant) that the facts stated, coupled with desertion, would warrant a divorce for adul tery. Desertion may be alleged in such an action as tending to strengthen other proofs, though not sufficient of itself. It is not necessary that direct ocular evidence of the fact of adultery should be produced. That would render it exceedingly difficult to obtain a decree. Circumstances must be shown, which lead the guarded disxcix.-3

cretion of a reasonable man to the conclusion that the crime has been committed. Yet it is to be found as a fact.

And as to confessions, the law is extremely averse to rely upon them. The One Hundred and Fifth of the Canons of 1603 forbids the judge to grant a sentence founded solely on the confession of the accused; and the law of New York, though not so imperative, recognizes the principle.

But it may forcibly be urged, that, in the case stated, the woman acts upon the honest and, in her mind, well-founded conviction of the husband's guilt, and knows that this guilt justifies divorce. On this assurance she, in truth, is led to seek a divorce because of adultery, and, it may be presumed, she would not have done so for mere desertion. She may then well be deemed absolved from sin in marrying again. Yet even on this view we do not escape from difficulty. The woman constitutes herself a judge of the husband's criminality. Her conclusions may rest upon evidence amply sufficient, or upon trifles and vague suspicions. To take as a test her belief, would be a very indefinite and unsafe guide. Shall the minister then examine into the testimony, and judge for himself? It is easy to see how unfit and unjust this would be, as virtually trying a party not before him.

Yet it may be that the fact of adultery is so notorious, so flaunted before the world, so accepted in public opinion, as to leave no room for doubt. There may occur a case in which the action of the wife was so palliated and excusable as not to debar her from the altar. It should be strong, for it is to be an exception to a rule based upon a Scriptural precept.

It is true that the laws of the civil government we are under must control us in all civil relations, so that a divorce for causes which that government allows, must for such relations be held valid. But our duties and obligations as Christians are governed by a different law, and that law, in its proper sphere, is supreme.

If, then, what we have deduced be really the teachings of Holy Writ, it is the duty of every minister of religion to recognize, and in the solemn act of repulsion to enforce, those lessons. It is the duty of every layman earnestly to sustain the clergy in such a course. And it is the duty of the great Council of the Church manfully to declare that such is the Christian law. It is fitting that a Church which knows something higher than the voice of the people for its origin and guide, should lead in such an avowal and promulgation of the truth; and we believe that the great body of Christians around us would approve and imitate her course. The institution of mar

riage came from Heaven, "and to Heaven by nature clings." A rupture and annulment of this union, except as Heaven has permitted, is sinful, and there is but one case in which it is sinless. For every Christian, in every spiritual relation, this is the definite, the absolute, the irreversible law.

We have endeavored to give our views a practical form and expression in the following canon which we submit for examination:

A CANON AS TO REPULSION IN CASES OF DIVORCE.1

It shall be the duty of the ministers of this Church to repel from the Holy Communion, for the periods specified, persons in the following cases:

1. Any person divorced for his or her adultery, until the end of three years from such divorce, when such person shall remain unmarried. In case such person shall have married again, until the end of three years from the death of the new husband or wife of such per

son.

2. Any person divorced for his or her offence, other than adultery, until the end of two years from such divorce, when such person shall have remained unmarried. In case of such person's remarriage, until the end of two years from the death of the other party to such new marriage.

3. Any innocent party to a divorce for any other cause than adultery, who shall marry again during the life of the other party, and until the end of two years from the death of such other party.

4. Any person who shall have married another, divorced for the adultery, or for any other offence of such person, until the end of two years from the death of such divorced party.

5. Any person who shall have married another, the innocent party to a divorce for other cause than adultery, until the end of two years from the death of such party.

6. In each of the above cases, upon the lapse of the period specified, the party may be admitted upon satisfactory evidence of true contrition and sorrow for the offence, and may be a worthy partaker of the Holy Table.

§ IV. In special cases where the minister is of opinion that an exception might be justly made to the provisions in the above first five clauses, he may lay the same before the Bishop of Diocese, and with his concurrence admission may be allowed.

'Might be § 3 of Canon 12, Title ii. of our Digest.

IN

SECOND ARTICLE.

III.

N a former notice of this work, we attempted an examination of the first part of it, entitled "The Philosophy of the Holy Communion;" in which the author attempts to reconcile the dogma of transubstantiation with modern forms of philosophical thought. Our object in this review was stated to be an exhibition of the type of religious life and inward experience which dogmatic Roman Catholic teaching generates. This, we think, appears from the second part of the work, entitled "The Theology of the Holy Communion," which we now propose to consider.

In this part, there is one chapter, entitled "The Life of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament," in which the principles stated are so excessive, not to say audacious, that, to give a just estimate of its teachings (and the work is one that is used as a text-book and work of devotion), and of the natural and necessary effect of them upon those who receive them, we shall be obliged to make somewhat extended extracts. We read as follows:

The wonders of that great Sacrament are not exhausted by the study of transubstantiation itself. When the great act of consecration has been accomplished, when the Sacred Humanity has taken the place of the sub

stance of bread and wine, we can still try to penetrate into the life and operations of Jesus beneath the veil. A thousand questions rise up as to how the powers of His being are affected by the non-extension of His human frame. What are His thoughts and feelings while a willing captive in the Host? He must be living, since He died once for all, and can never die again. What is the physiology of that most wondrous life? Even His Body must be living; does His Soul use it as His organ? Are His senses awake, or are they buried in the sleep of mystic death? We gaze at the Host, as it lies before us, and all these thoughts throng upon our souls. Above all, at the moment of Holy Communion, we fain would know whether He is simply passive, and, if not, what are the operations of His sacred humanity at that moment (pp. 115, 116). Let us take the moment of Communion. The Confiteor is said, and the priest holds the little white Host in his hand, and bids the worshippers in the hushed and tranquil church, Look on the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world. He uses the centurion's touching words, to put the kneeling and repentant communicants at the altar-rail in mind of the greatness of the Lord, Who is to enter into their inmost souls, and their soul's lowly house. He descends the steps of the altar, and places the Lord of Heaven upon the tongue of His sinful creature. Let us, however, forget the communicant, and fix our thought solely on the Blessed Sacrament. We know that the Sacred Host flew from the altar to seek out St. Catherine of Sienna, as she remained at a distance on her knees, crouching down in a corner of the church, weeping because she could not receive her Lord. Jesus, in the Host, was all the while even more eager than the saint, who had been burning with desire to be united to Him, and satisfied His eagerness by working the miracle. We know that He sank through the breast of St. Juliana Falconieri, when she could not receive Him through her lips. He, in the Blessed Sacrament, also, longed for the last time to be united to her upon earth, though the dying saint only dared to gaze upon the Blessed Sacrament once more before she died. But in the communion we are considering, there is no saint in the case. It is only such a one as takes place, at countless altars in Christendom, every day. What is going on in the Soul and Body of Jesus, beneath the sacramental veil, in such a communion as that? Our Lord makes no sign. All is done swiftly and silently. He is quite passive in the hands of the priest; He obeys the ordinary laws of motion, which rule all dead and inanimate things, not those which regulate the rapid flight of angels and of spirits. He is inseparably chained to the species, and betrays no powers of motion of His own. . . . He is, to all appearance, passive, inanimate, dead. . . . What is He doing at the moment of Communion? Does He know me? Can He hear me?

The instinct of every one of us answers this question in the affirmative. In some sense, we all feel that, in the Holy Communion, Jesus knows and loves us; that He is conscious and living (pp. 118, 119, 120).

Let us now, then, go on to consider the state of the Soul of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. The same great soul which, when He was on earth, spoke through His lips, looked through His eyes, modulated the sweet tones of His voice, thought with His brain, and lived with His heart, is in each particle of the Host, and is, consequently, received by the communicant. It is there with the self-same relations to the sacred flesh of Jesus which it had on earth. It is