Now, with all deference, this seems to us merely shifting the issue. If we are not stating what is technically correct, of the general truth of the statement we have no doubt, when we say, that this, while it repudiates the establishment of any special form of Christianity, maintains the establishment, in a manner, of Christianity itself: while it repudiates the principle of the religion of a small majority being incorporated into the life of the State, it sanctions the notion of that of an overwhelming majority ruling the political course of the people. In short, it is only another form of a phenomenon now frequently presented to us. A logical thinker pursues his object with a clear view up to some point where a complication arises, the dealing with which will render his logic inapplicable. At that point, having hitherto spoken free as air, he closes the door, and declines further consideration of the matter. If an illustration of this weakness were needed, it would be found in the conduct of the Evangelical Alliance with regard to Unitarianism. Every principle that underlies their action requires, that they should admit into their fellowship all who call Christ Master. But at the point where they meet Unitarianism, the complication arises. Its recognition as Christian would require a wider and more consistent assertion of the fundamental principles of Christian union than the Evangelical Alliance are prepared for. At this point therefore they close the gate-meanwhile claiming credit for the bold and free assertion of their great principles.

It appears to us, that the same has been the case here. For take up the argument of Mr. Conder at the point where we left it, and then introduce the further elements, inevitable in a State, of non-Christian populations. Is, we ask, the logic of Mr. Conder's argument to be suspended at this point? Are no religions to be allowed the benefit of it, except the Christian? No doubt, every Christian in his conscience would shrink from other religions being taken in: but this is not the question. The question is, How are we to deal, on Mr. Conder's principles, with the assumed religious character of a nation, made up of Christians, Jews, Mohammedans, and Hindoos?

Let us not be supposed to mistake the position assumed in the Essay.

"While the perfect development and right action of the Church require complete independence of all governments, corporate bodies, and associations of men in any other capacity than as Christians banded together for spiritual objects; the kingdom of Christ, on the contrary, demands for its complete realization the submission of every form of human government and society, national or other, to Christ's supreme authority. For in that He put all in subjection under Him, He left nothing not put under Him.'

"If this be granted in reference to states or governments, it will scarcely be denied of any other form of human society. It can be denied in reference to governments or states only on one of two assumptions: either

that these possess an authority independent of-equal or superior to-that of Christ; or else that they are incapable of obedience. The first supposition is absurd. Take whichever view of government you choose, either that under whatever political form it is administered, civil government is God's ordinance, and the magistrate, as such, God's minister; or else that the government of a country is the embodiment of the popular will, and the magistrate the minister of the sovereign pleasure of the majority. In the first case, it is certain that God has ordained no authority which he has not placed in subjection (de jure, though not yet de facto) to the Lord Jesus. In the second case, the stream cannot rise higher than the fountain. Men cannot create an authority superior to that by which every man is bound. The second supposition is equally absurd. Nations with their governments are composed of men. Men cannot be free collectively from laws which bind each man individually. By entrusting fifteen men with great public offices and calling them a Cabinet, or choosing 658 men to make laws and calling them a House, you cannot destroy the obligation every one of them is under to act, speak, and think as a Christian. A prime minister or legislator may be much more bound, but cannot be less bound, than a household servant to do whatsoever he does unto the Lord.'"

Of course as Christians, holding and maintaining the absolute sovereignty of Christ, we fully agree to this statement of what we believe to be the truth; we assume the duty of universally applying it, and yearn for the day when this application shall have taken place. But in so doing, how can we be said in any sense to be acting on Mr. Conder's principle of the freedom of religion in the State?

At the present moment, Christianity is probably, in Great Britain proper, the professed religion of an overwhelming majority. It may be almost said to be the religion of those who profess any religion at all. Still, however narrow the line which divides this "almost" from "altogether," even thus the demand, that the nation and its governors should act on Christian principles, is a claim that the religion of the majority shall rule in the councils of the nation; just as much so, as when the members of one Christian sect demand for it a dominant authority.

But this is not all. Owing to our insular position, we are so accustomed to regard the British coasts as limiting our national area and character, that it is strange to our eyes to rise to the conception of what really constitutes, at the present moment, the British nation. Yet this conception lives not in the idea alone. At the time when our Sovereign assumed personal rule over India, her style and title were changed so as to express this fact, and cognate facts not hitherto taken into account. That style and title now runs thus (or nearly thus, any mere verbal inaccuracy being unimportant): "Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and of all colonies and dependencies of the same."

Let the description of the nation follow the style and title of its Chief Magistrate, and Christianity is no longer the religion of the

majority. It has fallen from this position, and is now the religion of the stronger as against the weaker. It has on its side the standing army, with its guns and ships. It has on its side possession, with all the power and prestige which possession confers. Is Mr. Conder prepared for the consequence?

Now we are arguing thus, not to prove that the carrying out of Christian principles is not to be required of the nation and its government, but to show that the practical application of Mr. Conder's undeniable à priori truths breaks down at the very point where we might look for its complete carrying out:-and in showing this, to illustrate by one more example the necessity, at some point or other in this application, of resort to a compromise.

If this be established, then the question for Church and State is, at what point, and in what form, this compromise may best be adopted. Whether the answer be that we shall pause at the point indicated by the present Anglican system,-whether we agree to advance further, and to fix it at the form of Christianity common to the Anglicans and the so-called Orthodox sects,-whether we throw the bounds still wider open, and make the platform of the nation's religious obligation the bare recognition of Christ as Redeemer or Teacher, whether, to take the extreme case, we rule the line for the nation's conduct outside Christianity altogether, and according to the presumable moral conscience of mankind,—in any and every of these cases we abandon Mr. Conder's theories at some point or other for a practical compromise: and the question is no longer, for the nation, What is right? but, What will work best?

Possibly we have already discovered the best form of compromise, and it only remains to reduce it into consistency with itself: possibly, a better might be found by adopting as the national platform our common English Christianity, and, within its bounds, shewing special favour to none. On this important and difficult matter, we pronounce no opinion here; but we do say thus much, that it must be decided, and it will be decided by the nation, not in obedience to the rules of inexorable logic, not according to any fair à priori system, but by the mature consideration of what will work best for the spiritual and social benefit of all classes of her people.

We have been, by Mr. Conder's omissions, led so far into the practical examination of the subject, that we have only room to characterize his Essay as ably and candidly written,—with, perhaps, a somewhat too large adornment of rhetorical figure and fine writing, tending sometimes to distract and puzzle the reader.

VOL. XV.

V.

The Essay on "the Forgiveness and Absolution of Sins," by the Editor, is hardly at all concerned with the Ecclesiastical aspect of that subject, but is principally employed in a rather severe and almost scholastic discussion on the nature of forgiveness or pardon. We own to disappointment at this, as we were prepared for some deliverance in this volume on the deeply interesting question how far the power of discerning spirits, and in consequence of approximately pronouncing the actuality of the forgiveness for which a penitent seeks, may be conceived to belong to the shepherds of God's flock. We can conceive none better qualified to speak disinterestedly on this matter than an able and learned Dissenter like Dr. Reynolds and we regret exceedingly that he has not anywhere in his Essay entered on it. Still more do we regret that when the practice of priestly absolution is referred to, it is dismissed with the trite, and, as it seems to us, irrelevant statement, that " assurance of salvation is a part of religious experience, and all the priesthoods are powerless to arrest it, to frustrate it, or even to supply its necessary conditions." So, no doubt, is the assurance of convalescence matter of physical experience; but may we thence infer that all the doctors are powerless to arrest it, to frustrate it, or even to supply its necessary conditions? So far from casting a slight on the declaratory absolving power of the ministry, we should be inclined to maintain that there is hardly any department of pastoral work so immensely important in its consequence for good. Nay more; we should go further, and say that among the Nonconformists themselves, there is no pastor with any kind of advising acquaintance with the individual members of his flock, who does not almost day by day exercise this power. We are unable to see how without it there can be anything deserving the name of the cure of souls. And while we are fully sensible of the evils arising from compulsory confession in the Church of Rome, we make bold to say that it is in the confessional that she exercises that immense power for good which none will deny her. Even Dr. Reynolds is not indisposed to admit this::

"The claim of the priesthood, which has prevailed throughout episcopally-governed Christendom for so many centuries, must not be dismissed as a valueless and perilous assumption. It does cover a great truth and a deep reality, viz., that there is life-giving power and holy contagion in the mutual communication of a common hope, in the united exercise of solemn faith and prayer. One sinner can help another to believe and to repent. The confident expression of Christian hope and faith does kindle human hearts, and bring them into holy fellowship. The Spirit of God does work with human affections and in the interchanges of religious experience.

Many a Roman priest has gained as much as he has imparted in the confessional. The reality of Christ's love has flashed back from the soul of the believing penitent, and lighted up his own with new love and higher trust. The solemn utterance of the law of Christ, and of the power of His cleansing blood, has often lifted the burden from the conscience and saved the souls of men; but this has happened millions of times, when no sacerdotal claim has been preferred, in the pastorate of every godly minister, in the Sunday-school class, on a thousand death-beds, on battle-fields, in the mission-station, in wretched homes and hearts, which have been reached by Christian faithfulness and love."

Of course there is truth in the last sentence, as we are all thankful to know and feel. But the question is, whether this solemn utterance cannot be more judiciously and discriminatingly made to the individual soul by those who are specially trained to the work, than by others, whose sole qualification is Christian faithfulness and love.

Observing on what we do find in Dr. Reynolds's Essay, we may say, that we have the momentous subject of the existence, consequences, and pardon of sins entered upon and worked through with the connecting grasp of a practised thinker, though, as we hinted before, in a somewhat scholastic and technical style. Some of the terms used fairly beat us; others do not yield up their meaning till after a disentangling process. This may be our own fault: but surely it will be that of many others also. Few will at once attach an idea to "limiting the annotation of an original pictorial rootform;" few have ever before seen the verb "incremented," the noun "controvertist," the "concept of Deity;" an "analogue of creative power;" the adjective "disciplinary," and several other terms scattered up and down on the pages of this Essay. But while we could wish that some of these had been simplified, we are bound to thank Dr. Reynolds for the great interest with which he has invested his deep and difficult subject. In all his propositions we are not quite able to agree: for instance, when he says that whatever else pardon may include, it must involve the removal of the consequences of the sin pardoned. Is this so? Nay, may we not almost rather say that these consequences are the precise things which pardon leaves intact, nay sometimes even enhances? David's sin was "put away." Its ultimate penal consequence, death (whatever that may mean), the casting out of God's presence, and taking away of God's Holy Spirit from him, these consequences were removed, it is true. But did David suffer less, or more acutely, the misery which his sin brought upon his house, for being a pardoned penitent? The real effect of pardon cannot be better stated than in that verse of Psalm li. which we have just cited. It is the annulling of that exclusion from God's favour which unpardoned sin would induce; the retention of the sinner in his forfeited place in God's family. It does not alter