as the basis of remarks that are rather satirical than argumentative.

"If," says he, as soon as one upper room in a city was filled (not merely by believers, but by a miscellaneous company of hearers who had "taken seats in order to sit under some one's ministry"), the Apostles had encouraged the Christians, suppose of Antioch or Corinth, to hire another room and found a new "interest" or "cause," to institute a completely independent Church, perhaps three streets off, with a separate government and separate responsibilities, does any one believe that this scheme of incessant division would not have aggravated the schismatical tendencies of human nature, and have offered every facility for the exhibition of human littleness and selfishness? The Apostles did nothing of the sort. That a Church ought to be of the size of a Chapel never seems to have entered into their imaginations."-p.p. 8, 9.

If our readers will alter the word "chapel," which was, of course, unknown to the Apostles, and in place of the hits in inverted commas, which are merely intended to give satirical point to the paragraph, and substitute reasonable phraseology in their stead, they will find that all the force of the writer has disappeared. He has said nothing beyond this, that the believers, say in Corinth or Antioch did not divide into separate separate Churches, but he has not proved that they did not constitute separate assemblies. Indeed, if no one room, or house, or building, could contain them all, they must have done so and all argument to the contrary is thrown away. To talk of chapels is gratuitous impertinence. The question is whether, with a plurality of pastors, and a multitude of deacons - acting in

concert-and ruling over several different assemblies, such a Church can be called independent? The government must lie with the officers who can meet, and the thousands who can never meet in one place, must be under their control. This, we submit, is not independency, and the author of the above paragraph must needs be either a crude thinker or a latent Presbyterian.

Dr. Angus, in his admirable essay, says "The name of a Church is given to any society of Christians united in faith, and gathered in one place." Our author, while quoting this passage with much approbation, can hardly resist a sneer at the word "place," used by the Dissenters to signify their place of meeting; but, upon second thoughts, he condescends to reason. He tells us that the one place was the locale of an Independent Church, and was taken to signify a city, town, or village, and not a building. He has not, however, even stated the new meaning which must be assigned to the word "gathered," if his explanation be correct-a meaning, moreover, which would require some authority or some justification. For, according to his showing, it must signify either living in one city or else ecclesiastically united. The latter seems to be our author's meaning, because he fights against the existence of two Independent congregations in one town or city, on the principle that such a separation would have destroyed the unity of the Church. This is a new idea among the two leading bodies of Protestant Dissenters. But, if the unity of the Church is broken by division into separate congregations in the same city, is it not also broken by separate congregations in neighbouring towns? If, for unity, the Church must be

one in a city, why not in a province? why not in an empire? What, then, becomes of Independency? Our author's idea fairly carried out would destroy it, and hand us over to a Presbytery, to the Church of England or to Rome. Meeting in one place, and in that place governing ourselves is the very essence of Independency. It is evident that, when a Church is too large to meet in one place separation must ensue if not, Independency is at an end; yet we do not admit that separation for the sake of convenience violates the unity of the Church-our author appears to think that it does. If he be consistent, then he is neither a Baptist nor a Congregationalist.

We are not blind to the faults which all the world has discovered

in us and in our system. This would be impossible, considering how often we are reminded of them by our avowed enemies. They are no secrets, although our author talks of the secrets of Congregational Independency as if he did not know that all our weak points are matters of public notoriety. He fancies that he is coming out with a confession, and appears to claim some merit for free speaking. How shallow is this pretence! He is only repeating things which have been said long ago with this difference, that he is a professed friend. If these papers had been announced as a reprint from Blackwood," no person would have doubted their original.

But we find ourselves no nearer to an agreement in the details than we are upon the general principle. In an Independent Church every member has a vote upon all matters of business, and, theoretically speaking, the poorest and the poorest and the youngest have in this respect as much influence as the most ad

vanced in age or the most exalted in social position. This excites our author's special indignation, and he returns to it again and again as to a favourite topic of satirical invective. A servant girl and a youth of seventeen do duty for the contemptible member who is to be balanced in rebellion against the grave deacon or the reverend pastor. The objection is by no means original. Nearly forty years ago, a leading article in the Times newspaper took up the same ground against Dissenters, only the illustration then chosen was a pious pot-boy. We do not remember ever to have met with that functionary as in communion with our Churches, far less as taking a leading part in the management of affairs. But on the supposition that there might be, the argument is as good as that of our author. Certainly we have servant maids, and, thank God, even youths of seventeen, and would gladly receive more; but that they ever play the part assigned them in this pamphlet is not in our experience. He who argues from the theory only, and leaves out the many social checks that modify its operation, may be very sure that he is coming to a false conclusion. If there are cases where those checks are wanting, they must be exceptional, and consequently, a general argument founded upon them thoroughly uncandid.

Again, the mode in which members are admitted to our Churches, and the means adopted to ascertain the sincerity of their profession are the next subjects of reprobation. It seems that if we follow primitive example we ought to admit all who present themselves-if moral characters-and trust for the purity of the Church to wholesale excommunication. Our author, we presume, has

never read that solemn warning to the builders of Christ's Church, not to build even upon the true foundation with "wood, hay, and stubble," for that "the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is; therefore "let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon." How, on his principle, can there be any meaning in such an admonition? He who joins the Church is alone responsible for the act, and if he prove an improper character can be cast out, with the whole blame upon his own head. Why then are the ministers to suffer loss and be saved only, "so as by fire?" Granted that the Apostles Lave not told us by what means we may test the credibility of a profession; yet if they have specified the characters of which alone the Church should be composed and have warned us against receiving any others; their silence has left us at liberty to employ the best tests in our power. But why does our author ask so confidently for apostolic law on this head, while he himself goes on to give a long catalogue of sinners who ought to be excommunicated without feeling that he has any need of New Testament authority. We suspect that this work of exclusion would be far less easy than he imagines. In a Church to which admission is so facile, even a "foul-mouthed religious' newspaper editor" might have his naughty readers and sympathisers who would conspire rebelliously against our author's godly discipline. We do not ourselves see that it should be confined to the editors of religious newspapers, If exercised at all it should be applied to all journalists who distort the truth, bring false accusations against their brethren, or write in an unchristian spirit.

The subject of Nonconformist

Church finance comes next under review; and here we would gladly commend our author's remarks to the attention of our readers, if we did not thoroughly disapprove the style of writing which he has chosen to adopt. Discussions on Church questions ought surely to be dispassionate; and systems and practices, even though objected to, ought not to be represented in broad caricature. Indeed, we are wholly at a loss to conceive what there is in the subject to stir up so much gall as is here poured forth with a marvellous freedom and fluency. Less of the spirit of a Juvenal might have served a Christian writer, who, as yet, had not the excuse of having been provoked and irritated by opposition. Why is it that some men cannot point out what they think to be an abuse, or advocate a principle that is likely to be disputed, without supposing that somebody has contradicted them, and writing as if they had been stung?

If we believed half the accusations brought against our Independent Churches in the pamphlet upon

which we have been commenting, we should at once abandon all communion with them, as the most vulgar and contemptible misrepresentations of Christianity that the world has ever seen. We do not comprehend our author's position; for it appears that, in the face of his own descriptions, he comes to a very different conclusion. Here is what he says in his preface:

"Notwithstanding the many limiting and qualifying phrases contained in these papers they form, as a whole, that which may be taken for a tissue of unfavourable criticism on modern Nonconformity. No one feels more strongly than the author how much might be said on the other side in the way of earnest advocacy, triumphant defence, and rational apology. It is believed,

however, that every candid reader will easily discover in the following pages a hearty love for the essential principles of our secession, and a due respect for its best representatives."

We think, however, that every candid reader will see that, let the limitations be what they may, unless they are sufficient to render the representation essentially untrue, enough will remain for the utter condemnation of modern Independency. On the part of a professed friend, we cannot admit the plea that such papers as we have before us were purposely written with an endeavour not to blunt the force and utility of adverse statements. We have a right to expect from every author that what he writes

and publishes shall be the genuine expression of his own thoughts and sentiments, and that he shall mean exactly what he deliberately commits to the press. Our faith in his truthfuless is destroyed, and the morality of authorship violated, if he delivers as his own, the unsoftened and even exaggerated accusations of enemies, to serve the purpose of more deeply impressing his friends. If that were really the motive of the present publication it would indeed explain how such a work could come from one of ourselves; but it would deepen the feeling of regret which has been awakened in our minds by its perusal.

THE progress of the Gospel during the first five centuries of our era will always command the attention of devout Christians, and of the students of history. The scanty records which remain to the present day display such faith and heroism, such unselfishness and zeal, on the part of the missionaries of the cross, that, notwithstanding the corruptions of faith and manners which sprang out of their foolish devices to preserve both, we cannot but feel ourselves their debtors for the example they have bequeathed us to live not unto ourselves but unto God.

There is, however, a strange tendency in mankind to feel especial interest in what is foreign, rather than in that which lies at their own door. Many people are stirred to beneficent sympathy by the recital

of the ignorance or wretchedness of persons dwelling in the interior of Africa, or in the mud swamps of Bengal, who never bestow their attention upon the cottages in their own neighbourhood, or seek to remedy the evils which are festering around them. And the same vitiated feeling leads many to prefer acquaintance with the Ecclesiastical history of other countries to the neglect of their own. In this way the contentment with which intelligent Christians in the British Isles remain in ignorance of the early Ecclesiastical history of Ireland* may be, in part, accounted

Trinity College, Dublin, and one of the most learned antiquaries in Ireland, has just published a handsome volume entitled "St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland." A memoir of his Life and Mission, with an introductory "dissertation on some early usages of the

Dr. Todd, one of the senior Fellows of

for. They take for granted that, as that country may now share in the improvements which are characteristic of our times, there is no reason for bestowing upon it any special attention. Yet gratitude may combine with a desire to repair the wrongs inflicted upon Ireland in the past, to inculcate a different opinion.

It is probably unknown to the majority of educated Englishmen that we are indebted to the zealous labours of Irish missionaries for the introduction of Christianity into large districts of Great Britain. "By the ministry of Aida was the kingdom of Northumberland recovered from Paganism, whereunto belonged there, beside the shire of Northumberland and the lands beyond it unto Edinburgh Frith, Cumberland also, and Westmoreland, Lancashire, Yorkshire, and the bishopric of Durham; and by the means of Finan, not only the kingdom of the East Saxons, which contained Essex, Middlesex, and half of Hertfordshire, regained, but also the large kingdom of Mercia converted first unto Christianity, which comprehended under it Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Rutlandshire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, Huntingdonshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Shropshire, Nottinghamshire, Cheshire, and the other half of Hertfordshire. Scottish," continues Archbishop Usher, who, in the foregoing sentences, summarized the statements of the Venerable Bede, "that professed no subjection to the Church in Ireland, and its historical position from the establishment of the English colony to the present day." In spite of defects in style and arrangement, this work deserves the attention of all historical enquirers.

"The

Church of Rome, were they that sent preachers for the conversion of these countries, and ordained bishops to govern them." And it is certainly unknown to the majority of English Christians that, when the Papal power was struggling for supremacy in this country, one of the principal hindrances to its success was found in the customs which the Scottish missionaries had introduced and established amongst their converts. No one can read the Ecclesiastical canons adopted in provincial and diocesan synods from the 7th century to the 9th, without perceiving the influence which even then they continued to possess in almost all parts of England; and when it is added that these customs related to such matters as the ordination of bishops, the election of abbots in monasteries, the right of bishops to preach to preach beyond their own churches, the dedication of churches to the public worship of God, the observance of Easter, and the admission of communicants to the Lord's supper, without any adoption of Papal doctrines, it will be at once seen that the antagonism which they offered to Roman ecclesiastics touched the fundamental questions of religious service. And who will not confess that the questions thus raised by these Scottish missionaries form a large part of the unsettled controversy between the Prelatic and Nonconformist communities of the present day? The Scottish missionaries to England were the pioneers of religious freedom, and infused into our countrymen a disrelish of foreign and prelatic control, which has, ever since their labours, more or less characterized the religious history of England.

It was a happy thought of the only Englishman who has worn the