the compass of the human imagination to conceive that out of the fragments of either literature, equal in bulk to the Bible, and containing the writings of the same number of authors, a book could be compiled which could, by possibility, be regarded as one?

"By no process," Mr. Rogers remarks, "let us shuffle the more copious existing materials as we may, or exercise the most discriminating arts of selection, could we compile a mélange equal in bulk to the Bible, that could for a moment cheat any ordinary mind into the belief that it formed an organic whole; much less impose on many millions of mankind of different races and epochs, including among them thousands of the most illustrious for genius and learning." (pp. 159, 160.)

We commend Mr. Rogers's chapter entitled "Reply to some Objections founded on the Form and Structure of the Bible," as affording a remarkable illustration of the manner in which, where the cause which is advocated is the cause of truth, objections which appear, at first sight, extremely specious, are found, on closer examination, to afford substantial evidence in support of the position against which they are adduced. Equally entitled to a careful perusal are the two Lectures on "Certain Peculiarities of Style in the Scriptural Writers." Our Author's remarks on the peculiarity of the sacred writers, in their representations of character in a purely dramatic form without comment or criticism, are extremely interesting and important. This mode of writing is, as Mr. Rogers observes, both unusual and difficult; and we think that it would be hard for any impartial reader of the Bible to read carefully such narratives as those of Joseph and of David, or to examine closely such indications of character as are afforded in the history of Peter, and to arrive, except under the influence of strong prepossession, at any other conclusion than that the histories which he has been reading must be the records of facts, and not the creations of the imagination.

The eighth of the Lectures contained in this volume is entitled, "On the Exceptional Position of the Bible in the World," and it is inferior to none which precede it in solid argument, or in graphic representation. The position of the Bible in the world is, as Mr. Rogers represents it, an exceptional position. The literature and monuments of the nations by which the Jews were surrounded have either utterly perished, or are being "reclaimed in tattered fragments." If a fragment such as that of the "Moabite Stone" is brought to light in the course of a thousand years, it not only excites the universal interest and astonishment of the learned of all countries, but it receives its interpretation mainly by the light of the Jewish Scriptures, and its value is estimated chiefly by reference to its alleged

consistency or inconsistency with the sacred writings. On the other hand, the Jewish nation appears to have possessed, comparatively, a very limited amount of literature, and nearly the whole of that literature appears to have been preserved. Independently, then, of the further consideration whether the Jewish annals contain truth or fable, it cannot but strike every thoughtful mind as a remarkable fact, that whilst mere fragments remain of the great monarchies of antiquity, "the little ark of the Jewish literature still floats above the surges of time."

The ninth and last of this able and interesting series of Lectures is entitled, "On certain Analogies between the Bible and the Constitution and Course of Nature." In this Lecture our Author adopts the method of reasoning so skilfully and unanswerably employed by Bishop Butler, in answer to objections against the truth of Revelation, on the positive side, and urges those peculiarities in the Bible which are in analogy with the "works and ways of God" as direct arguments in favour of its superhuman origin.

Thus, for example, Mr. Rogers argues that the gradual development of Divine truth contained in the Bible corresponds with the gradual development of God's design in the formation and also in the moral government of the universe. Again, the historic form and development of the Bible correspond, it may be said, with the working out of the Divine plans and purposes in the world by the actions of moral agents. The raising up, moreover, of men to communicate the Divine will "at sundry times and in divers manners," corresponds with the sending forth into the world, from time to time, men like Bacon and Newton, Shakespeare and Milton, "whose appearance constitutes the world's true epochs," for the advancement of mankind in knowledge, science, and civilization.

In the concluding pages of this Lecture Mr. Rogers defines at some length the limits of the thesis for which he has been contending; and argues that whether particular theories of inspiration may or may not be successfully maintained, the substance of the Bible remains untouched; and that the surrender of all the passages in which either fact or doctrine is affected by corruptions of the text or discrepancies in the manuscripts, would make scarcely any appreciable difference in the determination of the points for or against which they may have been cited.

Whether it be thought that the concessions which Mr. Rogers is prepared to make in this portion of his work be or be not demanded by the results of that more critical examination of manuscripts, versions, and fathers to which the Sacred Text has been submitted in recent times, we entirely agree in

the conclusion at which he has arrived, that whatever the amount of proven or suspected error in the text of the Bible, as it has been transmitted to the nineteenth century, the evidence on which its claims to our belief, reverence, and obedience rest, remains unmoved and immovable.

We will only add, that we commend the careful perusal of this valuable contribution to our Christian apologetics, alike to those whose minds may have been disquieted by the specious but hollow assaults of modern Rationalism, for the removal of their doubts, and to the devout and diligent students of God's word, for the further confirmation of their faith.

CORRESPONDENCE.

PRIVATE CONFESSION AND INDICATIVE ABSOLUTION.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

DEAR SIR,-With your permission, I will add to my former letter a few further remarks by way of illustration and corroboration.

The course of my argument led me to distinguish between spiritual forces and spiritual authority. It was maintained that while every ministerial act set in motion a force which was calculated to affect the soul, and to reach forwards into eternity, yet ministerial authority could only have judicial effect within the area of its judicial cognizance that is to say, within the area of the Visible Church.

In general terms, and of course on the conditions always to be understood in connection with the Divine promises, the sanctions of Heaven were attached to the judicial sentence of the Church on earth. "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven." And without this general sanction from Heaven, the public discipline of the Church would have no other foundation beyond the implied contract entered into by its members to observe common laws, just as men agree to observe the rules of any mere human society to which they belong.

But it is clear, that though the sanction be given in heaven, heaven is not the area in which it operates. The words of Our Lord clearly do not mean that the acts of the Church on earth shall be decisive for eternity, and shut men out decisively, and without appeal, from the future kingdom of glory in heaven. They mean that the operation of Church censures within the area of the visible Church on earth shall take place under Divine sanctions; that He, at God's right hand in heaven, will respect (if we may so speak) and give effect to the sentence of His Church on earth.

And here occurs a difficulty by no means peculiar to this subject, but one which meets us in any attempt to deal with the fulfilment of God's promises in any particular case.

The promises attached, for instance, to earnest prayer, or to an upright life, if we rely upon a considerable number of isolated passages, seem to be attached certainly and absolutely. Yet even under the old covenant good men were not always prosperous, nor under the new are earnest prayers always answered.

But, to account for this, we have to take a general view of all that is revealed on the subject; and to construct a theory which covers all those conditions and qualifications which, on the whole, appear to be presupposed. Thus, in the matter of prayer, we are accustomed to say that submission to God's will (as yet unknown) is a pre-requisite of its acceptableness; that our prayers may be more than answered in ways more expedient than those present to our own desires; that the answer may be purposely withheld for a time to try our faith; and that our prayers may not have been offered in that state of penitence and faith which alone can warrant our expecting a favourable answer. All this our own experience on the one hand, and a careful consideration of the whole tenour of Scripture on the other, cannot fail to make plain to our minds. And yet the words remain-" Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it you." "Ask, and ye shall receive."

If then, by common consent, these precious promises are not to be taken absolutely or unconditionally, neither may we take absolutely those other words of His which tell us, "If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." And yet, because the promise is not to be taken absolutely, no one would maintain that they do not teach us that a special blessing belongs to united prayer.

And these words are but a corollary from the general principle laid down just before, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."

Neither then may this promise be taken in a sense absolute and unconditional.

Let me take another instance of what I mean. Our Lord said to His disciples (and perhaps they were His farewell words, the very last which He spake before He ascended), "Lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." How did these sublime words come to be interpreted in after times? Why, men invented a minute ecclesiastical machinery, culminating in a General Council, and then they maintained that if all due formalities had been observed, and such a Council properly gathered, whatever it might happen at any time to decree was to be received by all with absolute submission and obedience, as the very sentence of Christ.

Surely a formulating and systematizing of those words of His, is as abhorrent as possible from His real meaning and His whole manner of teaching!

Of course the visible Church on earth, like any other earthly

institution, must have its outward forms and its working machinery. But to allow Christian principles and Christian feelings to take the form in any age most suitable to their expression, is one thing; to invent a number of minute and artificial forms and rules, and then pronounce the result of their working to be the declaration of Christian principles and feelings, is quite another. To argue in this way ab extra, and convert into mechanical results the promises of God (made always on spiritual and moral conditions), is both profane and absurd. And yet this is what the medieval Church, in every instance, actually did.

Our Lord had said, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them." Therefore said mediævalism, "This is a privilege and a power conveyed to a certain order of men. The priesthood is that order. Therefore get hold of a priest, take care there is no flaw in his orders (or the whole thing will be null and void), but get hold of a real priest-mind you confess to him for every sin, and he will absolve you from them all; the correct formula to obtain the result is in his possession!"

No wonder the same persons taught that by the repetition of particular forms of prayer for so many days, or by climbing up so many steps on one's knees, a certain definite remission was to be purchased from the pains of Purgatory.

Such extravagant fruits of the medieval system we all contemptuously reject; but it may be questioned whether we have really altogether abandoned the underlying principles, of which these absurd superstitions were natural, though remote, consequences. It would rather seem that some vestiges of these principles have remained amongst us for three hundred years in a sort of chrysalis state, and are now waking up to life again. If not, why is Private Confession, with a view to obtaining categorical and indicative absolution, again gaining ground amongst us?

For it does appear to me to be beyond question that such Confession can be resorted to by individuals only on those perverted principles of medievalism.

Let me not be misunderstood. I do not speak thus of such a resort to a spiritual pastor as may include or result in a confession of sin. I speak only of a formal and systematic confession of ordinary sins, with a view to obtaining from a "priest" categorical and indicative absolution of those sins. The thing here objected to is not so much the confession as the absolution.

It

A confession may be made for good and sufficient reasons. may be necessary to enable the minister of God's Word to give spiritual advice and counsel directly suitable to the case. Or some particular sin, or some habit of sin, may be felt to be such a burden on the conscience, that the sinner is impelled to seek relief in the sympathy and assistance of one whose office it is to bind up the brokenhearted.

Or, it may be felt, and rightly felt, that where undiscovered crimes have been committed, which, if known and proved, would entail at all events temporary excommunication from the Holy Table, these crimes should be acknowledged to God's minister, and his advice taken thereupon.