ment of the treasurer of its Foreign Board, that the six months of reunion have brought one-third less funds into its treasury than the corresponding months one year ago, when it was supported by the Old School branch alone; that its burden is largely increased by the transfer to it of missions from the American Board, and that, with liabilities of more than 136,000 dols., there are no funds to meet them. Is not this the Lord's rebuke to that betrayal of the gospel of His kingdom, which looks for its establishment in this dispensation by the erection and diffusion of great Church systems, and supplants the blessed hope of His appearing in the minds of men by a delusive dream of the world's conversion ?-Prophetic Times.

The Pope's Posture at Communion.

AMONG the curious archæological questions which surround the celebration of the Eucharist, not the least remarkable is that which

concerns the posture of the communicant. Of the four possible postures, lying, sitting, standing, and kneeling, all have been practised at different times. The original posture is, beyond doubt, the recumbent. It is certain not only from the well-known custom of lying on couches at meals during that age of the Roman Empire, but from the precise and unmistakable expressions of the Evangelists (véxero, Matt. xxvi. 20 ; ἀνακειμένων, Mark xiv. 18; ανέπεσε, Luke xxii. 14). They all describe this recumbent attitude, which in the case of St John, is further illustrated by describing in detail the posture in which the beloved disciple lay at length upon the couch next his Master (John xiii. 23-25). There is no record of the moment when this attitude, hallowed by the most sacred associations and the most primitive usage, was lost. It has now so entirely passed away as to have faded even from the imagination. Even in works of art, Poussin and Le Sueur are the only painters of the Last Supper who have attempted to represent it.

Doubtless the alteration began early, when the idea of the "Supper" was lost in that of the "Sacrament." Then the usual attitude of devotion took the place of the common attitude of guests at a meal; and standing, which in the earlier ages of the Church, as in the East then and now, became the authorised posture. In process of time, the attitude of standing was in Western countries exchanged for the more reverential posture of kneeling, as in other parts of the worship, so also in the moment of receiving the Communion. But in one large class of persons the standing posture still retained its ground. Throughout the service of the Mass of the Roman Church, whilst the congregation is enjoined to kneel, the officiating priest is enjoined to stand, thus maintaining an intermediate position between the custom when all stood, and the modern custom when all kneel. In the English Church, the standing posture is yet further restrained; for though a relic of the earlier Western practice is preserved in the standing posture of the

officiating minister during the larger part of the Communion Service, at the moment of reception he also kneels.

There long remained, however, and there still remains, to a certain degree, one remnant of the original posture of the Last Supper. Recumbency, indeed, has everywhere disappeared. But the nearest approach to it-i.e., the posture of sitting, which in the West has succeeded generally in social intercourse to that of lying down—has in one instance been preserved. The Bishop of Rome, from the singular importance of his office, has naturally preserved many peculiarities which have elsewhere perished, just as the clerical order generally has preserved other usages which the more transitory fashion of the secular world has in other professions obliterated. Not to speak of any rites but those which belong to the celebration of the Eucharist, there are amongst other peculiarities these :-He still celebrates facing the congregation behind the altar, instead of turning his back on and occupying, as all other priests, the space between them and the altar. He still continues-at least, in his chief cathedral (St John Lateran)—the practice of celebrating, not on a stone structure, but on a wooden plank or table. During his celebration, instrumental* music, common on all other like occasions, is prohibited, as in Eastern Churches. He takes the wine, not as other priests from the cup, but sucks it from a gold tube with a sponge inside it. This singular practice is said to be a remnant of the ancient practice when the wine as well as the bread was universally administered, and hence this precaution against spilling the wine, which has thus been preserved in the single case of the Pope, for which it is probably less needed than any other. In ancient times the Cardinal Presbyters used to celebrate mass with the Pope, standing in a circle round him—a relic of the more social character of the original communion. A separate scrutiny takes place of both the elements before he receives them. The sacristan eats and drinks first, looking at the Pope, from the same paten and the same chalice.†

But the peculiarity‡ which has attracted most attention, is the fact that by him and by him alone, in the Roman Catholic Church the posture of sitting has been, at least till comparatively modern times, retained intact, and in modern times is still, if not retained, yet kept in remembrance and partially represented.

The partial attitude of the present Popes is a remnant of the sitting posture of their predecessors. It is a compromise between the ancient historical usage and modern decorum. The Pope's attitude, so we gather from Rocca and Benedict IV., and also from Archbishop Gerbet, is neither of standing nor of sitting. He goes to his lofty chair, he * The trumpets blown at the entrance of the Pope into St Peter's forms an apparent exception to this rule.

+ It is probable that these practices originated in the fear of poison in the elements. The "Credence" table is a relic of the same dreadful suspicion.

It is hardly necessary to say that these peculiarities of usage belong to the Pope only as Pope. On ordinary days he communicates like any other priest.

VOL. XXIII.

0

stands till the sub-deacon comes, he bows himself down in adoration as the Host approaches. Thus far all are agreed, though it is evident that at a distance any one of those postures might be taken, as it has by some spectators, for the posture at the act of communion. But in the act of communion, as far as we can gather from the chief authorities, he is in his chair, facing the people, leaning against the back of the chair, so as not to abandon entirely the attitude of sitting-sufficiently erect to give the appearance of standing, with his head and body bent down to express the reverence due to the sacred elements. This complex attitude would account for the contradictions of eyewitnesses, and the difficulty of making so peculiar a compromise would perhaps cause a variation in the posture of particular Popes, or even of the same Pope on particular occasions. What to one spectator would seem standing, to another would seem sitting, and to another might seem kneeling.

This endeavour to combine a prescribed attitude, either with convenience or with a change of sentiment, is not uncommon.

It is worthy of note that when Dean Stanley first called attention to the Pope's posture at Communion, a leading Roman Catholic journal, the Dublin Review, bluntly contradicted his statement. Nor has its denial been yet withdrawn. It must be very mortifying to the Ultramontanes to find that in such a point their scheme is distinctly at variance with the spirit of "Primitive and Apostolic " ritual.Macmillan's Magazine.

Faith and Sentiment.

THESE letters (says a London Journal, speaking of a correspondence in its own columns) bring into prominence a point which may all be summed up in the reflection that a surprisingly large number of people appear to be practically unaware of the fact that religion ought to be true. Read, by way of illustration, "C.'s" letter. If thrown into the form of propositions it would stand thus:—

1. This life is an alternation of smiles and tears, in which the tears preponderate; and it ought to be viewed as good, though painful. There is a better future life after death.

2. The contemplation of natural beauty is calculated to strengthen a belief in this proposition.

3. Religious worship is intended habitually to express, and thereby to strengthen it.

4. Therefore religious worship ought to be invested with as much natural beauty as possible.

The proposition on which the whole of it rests, and which we have numbered 1, is diametrically opposed to every scheme of theology which recognises a hell; but if you reject hell because you do not like it, you have no right on the same authority to believe in heaven. You are brought back then to your own resources; and surely it is a very

bold thing, and one which it is not easy to reconcile with fact, to say that there is any sort of general consent amongst those who have considered the subject most carefully, to the effect that this life is a sort of May—rather an unpleasantly rainy one-which is destined to melt into a glorious June. No doubt, if the fact is so, the habitual contemplation of natural beauty, and its intimate connection with religious worship, are appropriate means of confirming our apprehension of it; but suppose the fact is not so, but quite otherwise, what sort of religious worship will you have then? Surely a worship corresponding with the fact as it may turn out to be. Whether your worship suits this class or that, whether it is pleasant to men or women, to Englishmen, to Scotchmen, or to Frenchmen, is really not the question. The only questions worth entertaining are, whether there are facts which form a natural basis for some sort of worship? what those facts are? and what is the form of worship which they suggest? If in point of fact Juggernauth existed and had the qualities usually ascribed to him, it might for what we know be a very good plan to throw ourselves under his wheels, and even to construct a railway with a special car for that purpose. If the theory laid down in the Westminster Confession is true in fact, the course of proceeding which a wise man would take in consequence is sufficiently obvious. If the Virgin Mary

really has all the prerogatives which Dr Manning and others ascribe to her, and if she really approves the sentiments which people entertain towards her, and the praises in which they are embodied, let us by all means cultivate the sentiments and repeat the praise. Whether any of these views is true, is a question of fact. And when that question is solved, sentiment must be moulded upon Whatever may be the value of the "dying dogmas of the past," as C." calls them, they had at all events one immense merit. They did profess to be true, and they were supported by evidence, good or bad, and no one can doubt that their enormous influence on mankind was due principally to this fact.

it.

66

The point at which we should practically diverge from "C." is this. He seems to think that worship ought at once, or as soon as possible, to be moulded upon the April-shower view of life, and that to adhere to the highly dogmatic modes of worship now in use is "stupid obstinacy." We say that truth must come first and sentiment afterwards; and that it is far better to go on as you are, pending further inquiry, than to take as your guide in matters of public worship a sentiment which to many people is highly repulsive; and which very possibly may be founded on a mistake. Dogmatic forms of worship can at all events be discussed and may be set right if they are wrong; but found your worship on sentiment, and you arrest its progress for ever, and shut out the prospect of arriving at truth. As "L. S." well observes, religion becomes a matter of taste, and ceases to be a matter of belief. You mix up your crying and your laughing, throw in a due proportion of rose-coloured sky in the distance, and typify it all by flowers, scents, and music, and this is your religion. No wonder that

people should despise and neglect it in proportion to their vigour of mind and body. Sentiment ought to stand to faith—that is, to an opinion about facts in the relation of effect to cause. Reverse this relation, and it becomes what the ivy is to the oak-an apparent support, but in reality a deadly enemy. Your belief makes you happy, your happiness makes you hug your belief, and it is first cramped and then stifled by the embrace. It seems natural, and even beautiful, to say, Feed the poor, the weak, the ignorant, tired women and little children, with food convenient for them. Teach old age to look forward to a near and happy futurity. Help misery to rise out of itself and live a little while in a happier land than ours. But this in reality is cruel kindness. One thing only is good for all alike, strong or weak, men and women, old, young and middle-aged, the prosperous and the wretched, and that one thing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as far as we know, or can reasonably conjecture what it is. If we are all to die like beasts,

say so, and say so crudely and boldly. If it is certain, or reasonably probable, or barely possible, that we are to live after death, in such and such conditions, say that equally crudely and boldly. If nothing is or can be known or reasonably conjectured about it, and if in consequence it is the best course to let the whole subject drop, then say that; and if you have no opinion at all, hold your tongue and let others speak who have an opinion; but on some such rock as this-hard and stern as it may be and not on the shifting sand of personal inclination, must all worship be built which is in the least degree worth having.-Pall Mall Gazette.

The Feeling Against the French Clergy.

You are already aware that before the fall of the Empire there existed a strong feeling against the clergy here. This is one of the most curious and remarkable facts in the history of the last eventful months. The hostility to the clergy arose quite suddenly. I should say that in the course of a single week, or less, it spread all over France. One or two correspondents of English newspapers, who noticed it, were right as to the fact, but wrong as to the origin of it. They believed it to be a sign of Republicanism. The answer to this is, that it did not manifest itself among the Republicans, but among the peasants, who have always, even in the quietest times, been opposed to the Republic, and who, during the last few weeks of the Empire, were so strongly opposed to it that to profess Republicanism in any country place was to put your life in danger. The hatred to the priests arose simultaneously with the hatred to all who were opposed to the Empire. The origin of popular furies of this kind may often be traced to some circumstance or idea utterly unimaginable by any reasonable person outside the country where they take possession of the popular mind. I have had excellent opportunities for tracing this particular fury to its origin, and will say what I know of it. It is connected in some vague way with the Papal