papal tiara to prevent the further growth of Christianity by annexing Ireland to the British Crown, and pledging the English monarch to reduce it to obedience in religion to Rome. The present condition of our sister island justifies the farsighted policy of Adrian, for every vestige of the ancient Scottish customs has been carefully destroyed, and Irishmen have to unlearn have to unlearn many of their prejudices before they can reproduce from their existing national records a correct image of the Christianity of their fathers.

At this point it may be useful to inform our readers that the ancient name of Ireland was Scotia, and of its inhabitants Scoti. It was not until near the close of the 11th century that Eadgar assumed the title of King of Scotia, on ascending the throne of North Britain, and thus for the first time sought to connect that name with the northern part of our island; but long after that date the inhabitants of Ireland were spoken of generally as men of the Scottish race, or Scots. It is necessary to keep this fact in mind in all enquiries into the early religious history of the British isles.

It would be very interesting to know the means by which the Gospel was first introduced into the country; but unfortunately no trustworthy account has been preserved. A curious tradition, however, exists, that "Altus, an Irish warrior, happened to be at Jerusalem at the crucifixion of Christ, and returned to his own country full of indignation at the conduct of the Jews." In a MS. preserved in the library of the Royal Irish Academy, which Dr. Petier has translated, and Dr. Todd quotes, we are told that Cormac Mac Airt, surnamed Ulfada, King of Ireland,

A.D. 254, "had the faith of the one true God, according to the law, for he said that he would not adore stones or trees. but that he would adore Him who had made them, and who had power over all the elements: namely, the one powerful God who created the elements. In him he would believe. And he was the third person in Eriun who believed, before the coming of St. Patrick. Conchobar Mac Nessa [King of Ulster, who died A.D. 48], to whom Altus had told concerning the crucifixion of Christ, was the first; Moraun (surnamed Mac Main) son of Caorpre Ciun Cait [the Catheaded] was the second person; Cormac was the third; and it is probable that others followed in the same belief." Although these references to the abandonment of idolatry by these eminent men do not possess any historical authority, yet there is good reason to believe that in the beginning of the third century there were small communities of Christians dotted upon the south-eastern coast more particularly, and in some instances in the interior of the country. It was to have been hoped that Dr. Todd would have been able to throw some further light upon their origin; but his researches have failed to discover any fresh evidence, and we must therefore conclude that the occasional intercourse which existed between Ireland and Europe furnished opportunities to Christian merchants and teachers to indoctrinate the minds of the Scots with whom they met, with the truths of the Gospel. At any rate, Tertullian boasted, in the beginning of the third century, that those parts of the British isles which were unapproached by the Romans, were nevertheless subject to Christ. And from the fourth century downwards, we have an

uninterrupted series of witnesses to the gradual reception of the Gospel by the Scottish people. So that it is manifest that the early introduction of Christianity into the country was followed by such results as awakened the attention of foreign Christians, and excited. their liveliest gratitude to God.

The organization of these Scottish believers in Christ as churches cannot now be accurately traced. But thus much is certain, that the primitive churches of Ireland were Congregational in their form, and that they knew nothing of prelatical authority or supervision. To so staunch a prelatist as Dr. Todd such a fact is vexatious and embarrassing; but he cannot set it aside. Centuries after the mission of Palladius "to the Scots who believe in Christ," and even after the labours of Patrick, Scottish bishops were ordained by a single bishop, and "almost every church," according to St. Bernard, "had its separate bishop. The ancient and inveterate habits of the people were stronger than all the influences which the successors of St. Patrick could wield in a contrary direction, and since the truth must be told, shocking as such a fact is to the conscience and to the nerves of a modern prelatist, even the successors of St. Patrick were guilty of conforming to the popular usage, and did singly confer episcopal rank upon men who neither had nor pretended to have any diocesan jurisdiction whatsoever. Even that is not all. Dr. Todd acknowledges that in the fifth and sixth centuries "the Irish bishops had no regular succession or jurisdiction, and that there were frequently two or more contemporaneous bishops in the same place; " and he also says that

"no doubt can remain in the mind of any unprejudiced reader that

the normal state of episcopacy in Ireland was as we have described, non-diocesan, each bishop acting independently, without any archiepiscopal jurisdiction, and either entirely independent, or subject only to the abbot of his monastery, or, in the spirit of clanship, to his chieftain. The consequence of this system was necessarily a great multiplication of bishops. There was no restraint upon their being consecrated. Every man of eminence for piety or learning was advanced to the order of a bishop, as a sort of degree, or mark of distinction. Many of these lived as solitaries, or in monasteries. Many of them established schools for the practice of the religious life, and the cultivation of sacred learning, having no diocese, or fixed episcopal duties; and many of them, influenced by missionary zeal, went forth to the Continent, to Great Britain, and to other then heathen lands, to preach the Gospel of Christ to the Gentiles." He also concludes a discussion of the alleged irregularity in the Irish churches of consecrating a bishop per saltum by saying, "There is no escape from the inference that the consecration of bishops by a single bishop, and ordinations per saltum, were at least tolerated in the early Church of Ireland." It is certain, therefore, that the bishops of "the early Church of Ireland were not prelates, and that the early Irish Christians had no such officers in their congregations.

We have no space to set forth the life of St. Patrick, or an account of his labours for the conversion of the Scottish people. It is sufficient to say that, without any pretensions to learning, he proved himself an active and zealous servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that by his perseverance and energy, the Gospel

SO

was carried into all the provinces of Ireland. But Dr. Todd shows that, in common with many others who, like himself, cared more for apparent success than for the effectual accomplishment of his work, he attempted to conciliate the adherents of paganism by adapting their heathen festivals to Christian observances. The consequence was what might have been expected. No sooner was the directly Christian element weakened in any district by the demise of the bishops who had laboured there, or by the withdrawal of the chieftain from the services of the church, than a relapse into paganism followed almost as a matter of course; that it is not wonderful to find that by the close of the sixth century there was a great declension perceptible in various parts of the country. The faithful mourned over the recovering power of paganism, and eagerly sought help from the neighbouring churches and monasteries of Wales to strengthen the things which remained amongst them. The help they asked for was freely given, and measures were at once taken not only to counteract the evils which had arisen, but to prevent their reappearance in after times. Schools were established to promote sacred learning, and a race of Christian teachers appeared as the result, who carried the Gospel into other lands, and established the reputation of the Scottish nation for orthodoxy, and learning, and zeal for the Christian faith.

It is commonly supposed that the strife of rival churches first arose in Ireland at the time of the Reformation. This, however, was not the case. English ecclesiastics, already in communion with Rome, looked with an envious eye upon Christian communities which re

tained their independence, and were untainted with the peculiar corruptions of Romanism. They were, therefore, eager to seize upon the first opportunities which arose, to arrogate to themselves spiritual jurisdiction in the country. The settlements of the Danes and Norwegians in Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, and other Irish cities favoured their pretensions. These Scandinavian settlers were, from their first appearance in the country, regarded as intruders, whom the native inhabitants were at liberty to harass to the utmost of their power, and, if possible, to expel. The consequence was, that they were obliged to maintain themselves by force of arms, and that, whilst pushing their successes to the utmost, they destroyed many of the ecclesiastical structures, which had been reared by the piety and energy of the Scottish people. Such sacrilegious conduct added new elements of estrangement to the political antipathy already existing; and when the Scandinavians at length professed themselves to be Christians, they dared not look for religious sympathy from the churches in their neighbourhoods which they had robbed and spoiled. They turned to England. They asked help from Canterbury. They received prelates from Lanfranc and Anselm, and their successors; and a prelatic church was thus organized by the Papal Archbishops of England to become the rival and the exterminator of the independent churches of Ireland.

But the guilty project was not easily accomplished. The Scottish Christians did not readily succumb to the yoke which was prepared for them. The authority of the prelates was not universally, or even generally acknowledged; and Pope Adrian IV., in acceding to Henry

II.'s proposal to invade the country, justified himself by avowing his desire "to introduce into [it] a faithful plantation, and a branch acceptable to God." So that from the time of the consecration of prelates for the Scandinavian settlers in the eleventh century, there have always been two Church-systems at work in Ireland. How the prelates administered their dioceses with the sanction of English law and papal connivance, cannot be told in this paper; but by slow degrees the native bishops of the independent churches of the country were superseded by their Papal rivals, until at the time of the Reformation, they had become practically extinct.

And thus was originated that hatred of the English Government which has continued till this day. At the Reformation, the prelates of Ireland were the representatives, not less of English injustice and misrule, than of Papal usurpation and intolerance. They were the objects of popular detestation, because they assented to, and carried into effect every enactment designed to trample out the vestiges of Irish literature, and liberty, and religion. It was sufficient for these prelates to adopt the Reformation

to rouse the country against the new doctrines which were thenceforth to form the creed of their Church; and, forgetting the wrong which had been done them by Adrian IV., and which had never been redressed by any of his successors, the Irish people resolved to identify themselves with the Papal cause, in the hope of getting rid of a detested and a detestable usurpation.

The history of the Anglican Church in Ireland is the saddest episode in the ecclesiastical history of Western Christendom. At this moment, the maintenance of that Church by English law is felt to be an outrage by the Irish people, and a scandal upon the statesmanship of our land. So long as it is upheld by the nation, the cause of Apostolic Christianity will be injured; but with the removal of such a memento of the grievances it has originated and maintained during the past seven hundred years, we might hope that the quick-witted, generous, and enthusiastic Irish people would turn again to those living fountains of Divine truth which refreshed their fathers, and made them a praise, not only to their own country, but to Europe at large.

Forty Days after our Lord's Resurrection. By the Rev. WILLIAM HANNA, L.L.D. Edmonston and Douglas. Those who have read "The Last Days of our Lord's Passion," will hail with delight this volume, and its

perusal will not disappoint their highest expectations. The several interviews of our Lord with His disciples during the forty days are graphically sketched, and the arguments thereby afforded for the truth of the resurrec

tion of Christ, and of Christianity, are incidentally, but forcibly, stated, and that without any sign of the scaffolding or nails. The characters of our Lord's disciples are also ably sketched, and for the most part, we think, correctly. Mary Magdalene is triumphantly cleared from the imputation of being a loose woman, which is sustained by so many institutions bearing her name, and it is clearly shown that there is no reason to suppose that she was either poor or dissolute. The appendix is as interesting as any part of the book. It contains an admirable exposition in Dr. Hanna's own style of 1 Cor. XV. 12-20. It also contains a lengthened article on Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, which will charm our Baptist readers, whilst it deserves the careful reading of our Pædobaptist friends. There are some parts of it which we would recommend our brethren to read on baptizing occasions. From the pen of a Pædobaptist they would be much more effective than any remarks of their own could be. We remember on one occasion reading with great effect by the side of the baptistry a portion of the Rev. Capel Molyneux's pamphlet on "Baptismal Regeneration."

Both he and Dr. Hanna feel the difficulty which besets the question of infant baptism when contending with the advocates of baptismal regeneration, and they are compelled to acknowledge, and to maintain, that in every instance of baptism recorded in the New Testament, the regeneration of the baptized is supposed. The following quotations illustrate these remarks:-After referring to every instance of baptism recorded in the New Testament, and to the references to baptism contained in Rom. vi. 3, 5; Cor. i. 12, 13; Gal. iii. 27; Eph. iv. 5; Col. ii. 11, 12; 1 Pet. iii. 21. Dr. Hanna-" Whatever spiritual benefit may, in the instances we have now before us, have been conveyed by baptism, it could not have been that described in Scripture as the regeneration or new birth of the soul; for, in every case in which the baptism was rightly celebrated, that change had

been effected before this baptism took place. Repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, in the realizing of which within the soul its regeneration takes place these were to precede the baptism. Unless we are prepared to say that baptism was itself the instrument of conversionthat those who beforehand had not been true believers were made so in and by that washing with water—we must repudiate the idea of regenerating grace accompanying the ordinance. "We regard it, in fact, as nothing more than the Church's corporate seal by which, in obedience to Divine command, she authenticates the admission of members into her communion by that visible signature conferring on them a title to a participation in all her outward privileges. The use of such seal is of great importance; it gives visibility and definiteness to the Church as a chartered corporation; it makes it out age after age as a spiritual society separate from the world, having principles of life, bonds of union, objects of pursuit which are all her own-a kingdom among this world's kingdoms, yet owning a higher birth, and aiming at a higher destiny."-" But is it to be said that we degrade this rite, or strip it of all high significance, when we look upon it as that sacred bond which binds each member of the mystical body of the Son of God to that great spiritual commonwealth, founded on Divine promises, guarded by Divine power, endowed with Divine energies, invested with Divine privileges-that Zion of God of which such glorious things have been spoken, to which pertain the adoption, and the glory, and the giving of the Gospel, and the service of God, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ?" After such remarks as these, the doctor necessarily feels compelled to ask, "Why, then, do we baptize infants ?" No express mention is made of infants in the command of Christ which instituted this rite; no distinct case of the baptism of infants is mentioned in the sacred narrative. Are we not acting,