extremely unfavourable opinion of masses of our reading public, we can sympathize so far with him in the glowing language of the last ten or twelve pages of his second part. Those who accept all the teaching of Ecce Homo," are certainly on a very different platform from the followers of either Strauss or Renan; and if they do admit all the facts which the book presents, and the legitimate consequences from them which it unfolds at once with great power and beauty, we do not understand how they can consistently stop short of the testimony of the centurion at the cross, "Truly, this man was the Son of God." But people often act very inconsistently; and whatever his readers may do, we cannot throw off the apprehension that the writer shrinks from the conclusions which he ought to draw. The whole tone of Mr. Gladstone's criticism is more hopeful than we are able to approve. And we think the reason of this is highly creditable to his own orthodoxy and his goodness of heart. It seems to us that he has put more positive Christianity into the book than any fair analysis can discover in it. Often it may be so with very defective books, written in a fresh and vigorous style upon religious topics; if they be only reverential, so as not to shock us, they are suggestive so as to interest us, and even to do us good. But they do this good to us because from other quarters we have derived the sound and solid instruction which these books themselves never could supply. Being otherwise provided for, we feel no want ourselves. But there will be a grievous want to those whose religious instruction is chiefly derived from these books. And we entirely doubt the expediency, if not the lawfulness, of a representation of our Lord's life, looking at him merely as a man. For, first of all, it is plain that this must give a picture of him which is at once dim and distorted. And secondly, the argumentation of Mr. Gladstone from the reticence of the three first Gospels on the subject of Christ's Godhead seems to us wholly fallacious. We do not think it would be difficult for any attentive reader of them to take exceptions to his arguments at every step. And, on his own showing, it was only comparative reticence; whereas our complaint against "Ecce Homo" is, that it is wholly silent upon the subject, without any direct reference to Christ as God's own, eternal, only begotten Son. So that if our Lord's question to those who had watched his whole course, "What think ye of Christ?" were put to the writer, we are not quite sure that he would go even so far as those who replied, "The son of David;" but though he did, we fear he might have their difficulty in replying to our Lord's further question, "If David call him Lord, how is he his son?" are in virtue of direct and immediate union to Christ and communion with him. He has discovered a new article of a standing or falling Church, instead of Luther's article, justification by faith and it is very natural that this should not have much importance attached to it by him. For his definition of faith, "neither more nor less than moral worth or goodness," 66 goodness when it shows itself conquering convention," &c. (p. 65), makes our justification to be by works; as, in fact, he so misunderstands the language of our Lord as to assert that "a man may have his sins forgiven because he loves much" (p. 67). If this be so, the name of justification may be retained, but its real meaning is turned upside down; and this appears to us to be the case at pp. 82, 83. The writer has certainly confined himself rigorously to morality; but in the way in which he restricts this so as to exclude duty to God, the unwarrantableness of his method comes out to view. The social morality itself is not satisfactory. That "enthusiasm of humanity," into which he resolves all well-doing, might often be an ignis fatuus to lead us astray, rather than a light to guide us. We cannot coincide in Mr. Gladstone's opinion that "the question of slavery is ably dealt with" in the conclusion of chapter twelfth; it seems to us that the apologist of slavery could derive considerable support from the teaching. There is a curious paragraph in pp. 279, 280, which must be very consolatory to any Spanish inquisitor who desires to justify an autoda-fé; we should like some better safety from persecution. Or if we turn from the practice to the theory of morals, his speculations on justice and mercy (beginning with his very definitions of them, pp. 232, 233) are onesided, erroneous, and dangerous. But morality ought never to be so treated as to exclude our duty to God, which, in the words of Christ, is the first and great commandment; our duty to man is but the second commandment, and is like the first; both are named in Ecce Homo (p. 151), but the first is practically ignored. It is proof to our minds how hopelessly the writer has lost his way, when he writes about love to Christ as being just love to the ideal of men in man!" (p. 165), &c. To present this social morality for examination as the teaching of Christ, is much the same as to present a piece of good cloth, to withdraw the warp by some process, and to leave the threads of the woof hanging by themselves, loose and of little value. Dr. Rainy's Position Indefensible; or, The Real Question at Issue in the Union Movement. By the Rev. William Balfour, Holyrood Free Church, Edinburgh, 1868. Pp. 48. MR. BALFOUR's pamphlet is acute and earnest; it is argumentative throughout, and the argument is urged with the intensity of strong conviction. His point is that more is in question between us and the United Presbyterians than any mere matter of endowment. We are divided, he thinks, by a vital matter of prin ameliorated or abridged, that was always regarded as involved in the Voluntary controversy by the defenders of Establishments thirty-five years ago. With all this we do not forget the writer's strong protestations that his book is only a fragment, and that he has still to deal with the theology of the subject, and thinks our scruples “astonishing and unreasonable.” We can honestly say that we look forward to that second part with the strongest wish to find our fears turning out to be unfounded. But it does seem to us that he has either made assumptions which he must throwciple; nay, it is the very same difference, not one whit aside at the end of his " tentative, not didactic" "process, or that he has laid his foundations so narrow that he will not be able to build upon it the magnificent temple of the whole truth of God. For instance, at pp. 48, 49 he seems to evacuate the cross of Christ, making it a mere "combination of greatness and self-sacrifice," and affirming that the epistles of Paul throughout bear testimony that this, and nothing else, kindled that apostle's enthusiasm; and that what Paul constantly repeats in impassioned language, the other apostles echo. Accordingly, the references to sin are alarmingly rare throughout the volume, and chiefly in circumstances in which they might have been awanting altogether. Very naturally, the Christ or Messiah of Jewish expectation is spoken of simply as a king, without reference to his prophetical office, unless in a sense that we think erroneous and dangerous; and without the slightest reference to his priestly office, though this was the fundamental idea of the Anointed One, and was expressly referred to by prophets and psalmists, by whom he rightly holds that the faith in a Messiah was unfolded and sustained. Nor can it surprise us that he denies that Christ is "the direct source of all humanity," and makes that enthusiasm which seems to him the essence of Christianity come from Christ to men in general only through the medium of others (pp. 321, 322); whereas, no truth seems more manifest to ordinary Christians than this-that they are what they We have not space to sift this last assertion. But it matters the less, for it is a side issue. The bottom of Mr. Balfour's whole argument is found in the United Presbyterian Distinctive Article, and in the first clause of it. There it is said "that it is not competent to the civil magistrate to give legislative sanction to any creed, in the way of setting up a civil establishment of religion." Mr. Balfour argues, first, that this means, or was intended to mean, that the magistrate is not at liberty to give legislative sanction to a creed, in any sense or for any purpose" to any effect whatever" (p. 13). Then he argues that, taken in this sense, the position implies that the Word of God "excludes all exercise of civil authority about religion and the Church of Christ" (p. 16). Hence the Articles of Agreement, whatever they may seem to concede, are really vague, equivocal, and mislead. The first clause of the Distinctive Article abolishes them for any practical purpose. Dr. M'Crie is cited saying," It would be a strange thing if it should be argued that Christianity forbids any homage being done to its Founder by national laws, or any service being performed to him by their administration; " and Mr. Balfour adds,-"This strange thing the United Presbyterians assert and attempt to defend" (p. 10). Such is his account of the difference in principle. For illustration and as a testing case, Mr. Balfour adduces the action of the Scottish Parliament of 1560 in ratifying the Confession of Faith. They sanctioned a creed, he says, when they ratified the Confession, although they gave no endowment at that time; and by this act of the Legislature, he adds, altogether apart from endowments, the "Church of Scotland was set up as a civil establishment of religion" (p. 13). He assumes that the United Presbyterians, objecting to Establishments, must object to this; and thus we may measure the range of their principle. The answer is plain. First, What the United Presbyterians take exception to is the competency of tho magistrate giving a legislative sanction to a creed, “in the way of setting up a civil establishment of religion." That is their own account of it; and it will not do to turn a dictum secundum quid into a dictum simpliciter; that is, to neglect their own specification of the thing they are prepared to oppose. Secondly, Mr. Balfour desires that the United Presbyterians should affirm in terms that they think it competent for the magistrate to give legislative sanction to a creed apart from a civil establishment. We do not know, and we do not much care to know, whether they would assent to a proposition in those terms. We think it not unlikely that they might object to those terms as ambiguous, and fitted to expose them to misrepresentation. They would certainly make very particular inquiry what the legislativo sanction of a creed is held to mean, and what it points to, before they would agree to the competency of it. But this is of less importance; for, thirdly, They have laid it down that nations and their rulers may and ought to know for themselves the teaching of God's Word; may and ought to give effect to it publicly, as the rule of their action in matters to which it applies; may and ought to further the interests of the religion therein divinely authorized, by every means consistent with its spirit and enactments; may and ought to recognize Christ's Church as having mission from Christ to do her great work, and as qualified by him with rights and liberties in the discharge of it which all powers must hold sacred. That being so, all that remains is the measure and manner of applying a principle agreed upon. And if the United Presbyterians prefer to say that the truth of God does not need legislative sanction, but that nations ought to know it, and to recognize and defer to it as authoritative, and to regulate the use of their own authority with a due regard to its claims,-then there may still be a difference between us and them, but it is not a difference in principle. Apply all this to Mr. Balfour's testing case; namely, the Act ratifying the Confession in 1560. His reasoning here is vitiated by a fundamental mistake, inasmuch as he considers this Act to have "set up the Church of Scotland as a civil establishment." That was not so. The remarkable thing about that Act is precisely this, that it "ratifies " a creed, and yet sets up no Church as a civil establishment. Beyond all reasonable doubt, the legislative establishment of the Church dates from 1567, and from the Act declaring "the foresaid Kirk "—ministers and people, whom this Act describes" to be the onely true and haly Kirk of Jesus Christ within this realme." But let that pass. Mr. Balfour in effect asks whether the United Presbyterians would approve of such an Act as that of 1560. We cannot answer for them; but we rather suppose they would inquire what that "ratifying" meant, and for what it was intended to lay a basis. As a matter of fact, they might state plausible grounds for thinking that in 1560 "ratifying" meant that the religion set forth in the Confession was to be the only religion lawful within Scotland: and so far as it meant this, the United Presbyterians would no doubt object to it. As a matter of theory, looking to what it might possibly be taken to mean, there might be debate. But mark what that is about which there is no debate. Mark what would be competent, according to the Articles, to a nation and its rulers, that happened to be, in God's providence, turning generally from Popery to Bible Christianity, as Scotland was in 1560. It would be the duty of the rulers of such a nation, in the light of the new truth received, to reject the claims of Rome to be mistress and teacher of the nations, and to have, in that character, the support of national laws. It would be their duty, on the same grounds, to recall and reverse all legislation in favour of Romish doctrine. It would be their duty to reform their marriage laws after the rule of God's Word. It would be their duty to give men their liberty on festival days, and to maintain the outward observance of the Sabbath alone, "recognizing its perpetual obligation according to the rule of the divine Word." It would be in the line of their duty in connection with the agitation which these changes might cause, especially in any portions of the nation that were lingering behind the rest, to address a proclamation to their subjects, in which they should declare that these changes were made in no spirit of indifference or hostility to religion, but with a concientious regard to revealed truth and duty; and while referring every man to the judgment of his own conscience in religion, should admonish them to make sure that what they received was indeed truth, and agreeable to Christ's true religion. It would be their duty to give all practical facilities and furtherance to the progress of truth and the ministration of it. And while repelling the encroachments made by Rome in the name of Church jurisdiction, it would be their duty to recognize the rights and liberties conferred by Christ on his Church and by him made sacred, and to countenance and protect her in her work. Finally, if they did not proceed to endow the Church, they would refrain, not from indifference to her material support, but from a conviction that that matter was provided for more suitably and scripturally otherwise. If rulers in such a case act thus, then they do not refrain from "legislative sanction" of truth in the sense of withholding the testimony to it, implied in conforming their own action to its requirements, but only in the sense of not imposing penalties on the one hand, and not establishing the Church on the other. For our part, we believe as much as Mr. Balfour that the magistrate may competently do more than the United Presbyterians admit; and that in some circumstances they may do so with advantage, and therefore ought to do it. Nor do we doubt that, whenever the question becomes practical, discussion will clear up the question and lead to a harmonious adjustment. The difference which exists between us and our United Presbyterian brethren might make it difficult for us to work together, were we situated now as the Church was situated in 1567. It would, therefore, have been of much practical moment at that time. Now, in 1868, it is hardly of any. But neither at the one date nor at the other could it be regarded as a theological difference, theoretically sufficient to ground a separation. OUR LIBRARY TABLE. Pp. We notice now two biographies and several pamphlets. his own room; and at however early an hour the party to do with the question now under discussion, and 66 The pamphlets are all from the Presbytery of Edinburgh. That Presbytery possesses great active and great passive power. The debate on Union, in March, must have been something unprecedented. Part of it has become public property, in a shower of printed speeches of great length and breadth, and various degrees of depth. We say part of it; for we still want several long speeches, and a good many short ones. Some of them may even yet appear. In the meantime, besides Dr. Buchanan's speech, the report of which was previously circulated, and which has now been republished; and Mr. William Balfour's, virtually represented by his pamphlet, we have those of Dr. Bonar, of Mr. Main, of Dr. Begg, of Mr. E. A. Thomson, and of Dr. Charles Brown. Each has something prefixed or appended, which carries on the development of the argument. The two latter we especially recommend. Dr. Brown's appendix is admirable for its graceful and effective handling of the ad hominem argument. Mr. Edward Thomson's statement embodies a whole class of facts and arguments with which it is high time that the Church became more familiar. As for Dr. Buchanan, Dr. Bonar, Mr. Main, and Dr. Begg, we shall only say, that if their cause proves untenable, it is not for want of scholarship, zeal, or ability on the part of its advocates. Dr. Begg has prefixed to his published speech a long and elaborate preface, dealing mainly with questions regarding the consistency of his opponents, of the Free Church, and of himself. But the materials he brings forward are all beside the point; so much so, that it is wonderful to see a man of Dr. Begg's ability taking the trouble to adduce them. What possible end can be served by showing that Dr. M'Crie, or Dr. Cunningham, or Dr. Begg's present opponents, or the whole Free Church, have at different times advocated the lawfulness of Establishments, or of Endowments, have expressed their sense of the importance of them, and have argued against Voluntaryism? Who denies it? Does that settle the question whether the actual difference now defined as between us and the United Presbyterians is, in existing circumstances, a valid reason for separation? Is it anything but trifling to expatiate on generalities like these? The case is no better as regards Dr. Begg's own consistency. Here he has to deal with Mr. Cameron's striking commentary on the Australian debate, in his "Forgotten Chapter." Dr. Begg boldly replies that the Australian debate had nothing 66 Establishments were to join in that basis, giving their Rationalism, or Broad Churchism versus the Bible. By the Editor of Times of Refreshing." Stirling, 1868,-has come to hand since the above was written. It appears to be a well-planned and well-executed brochure. It is intended to point out in a clear readable way the relation in which the prevailing Broad Churchism of many books, magazines, and sermons stands to the teaching of Scripture. The preface tells plainly the object in view. The alarming spread of a modified Rationalism among some classes of society in scotland, is the cause of the issue of this tractate. Previous to attempting its preparation, the writer sought, but in vain, to procure such brief treatises upon the subject as would be suitable to put into the hands of the young, who evidently stood in danger of having their faith in the truths of the gospel undermined by the attractive and fascinating literature of Kingsley and other Broad Church writers. Nothing, however, in a simple, succinct, and brief form, fitted alike to interest and inform general readers regarding the character of the Broad Church theories, and their direct antagonism to Scripture, could be obtained. The utter hopelessness of effecting the object by directing attention to those elaborate works upon the subject which only could be procured, ultimately determined the writer to prepare this little work." The service thus indicated is performed in a space of ninety-four pages, and in seven chapters, devoted to the topics of Sonship, Substitution, Regeneration, Justification, Eternal Death, Inspiration of Scripture, and a concluding summing up. These topics appear to be dealt with in a plain, straightforward way, and with a great deal of scriptural intelligence. Believing that it will meet a widely-felt want, we recommend it. Review of Intelligence. "A TIME this which, so far as I can measure, is by far the gravest which we have seen for a quarter of a century." These words, spoken by Mr. Gladstone on the 28th of March last, have awakened a response in the breasts of thoughtful men all over the country; and in reviewing, as we propose to do here, the current events of such a time, we shall endeavour to bear habitually in mind the very serious character which belongs to it. These columns will not be taken up with mere ecclesiastical gossip. The paragraphs will be more than a loose string of" varieties," selected with a view simply to the entertainment of the reader. Our aim will always be to single out such facts for record as may illustrate the course of public opinion on Church questions, and as may help to inform those who are concerned to know how it fares, not in their own sphere alone, but throughout the world, with "the Ark of God." FREE CHURCH. With the Assembly in prospect, the PRESBYTERIES OF THE FREE CHURCH have been during the month largely occupied with the discussion of subjects which they desire to see attended to in the Supreme Court; and naturally the Union question has been receiving special prominence. The particular point debated has gencrally been, whether the Committee should be forthwith discharged, or whether it should be re-appointed with a view to the prosecution of the work of negotiation to its natural close-viz., the exhausting of the whole programme. Shades of difference, indeed, have been observable in parties who are substantially agreed-as, for instance, in reference to the importance to be attached to the existence of dissensions within our own borders. But, since the great debate in Edinburgh, there does not appear to have been much discussion of the proposed Union on its own essential merits; and, with regard to the one issue specially raised, the balance of opinion in the provincial courts has been very decidedly in favour of proceeding. The Presbyteries of Lochcarron (unanimously), Inverness (by 7 to 5), Dunfermline (by 6 to 4), have overtured the Assembly to end or suspend the negotiations; while, on the other side, Kirkcaldy, Cupar-Fife, Auchterarder, Kirkcudbright, Kelso, Forres (not very cordially), Biggar and Peebles, Strathbogie, Jedburgh, and others, have expressed their opinion that nothing has occurred which requires that the negotiations should not be proceeded with. Apart from the Union, the subject which has been most occupying the attention of Presbyteries has been the nomination of candidates for the two chairs in the New College-the one rendered vacant by the lamented death of Dr. Bannerman, the other likely to be vacant in consequence of the desire which has been expressed by Dr. James Buchanan, to be allowed to enjoy, in the evening of his days, the rest to which his prolonged labours in the service of the Church well entitle him. Among those who have been named for the offices are Dr. Blaikie, Mr. M. Dods, Dr. T. Smith, Mr. Walker of Carnwath, Dr. Macgilivray of Aberdeen, Mr. Macgregor of Paisley, Mr. Dykes, Dr. M'Cosh, and Mr. James S. Candlish. We observe that the Presbytery of Lochcarron has overtured the Assembly to establish a "Gaelic Record" with Dr. Mackay as editor; that Dr. J. Wood has given notice of his intention to move the Presbytery of Dumfries at its next meeting to overture the Assembly anent the employment of lay preachers; and that the Presbytery of Dundee has had before it one of those perplexing cases which must now and then occur in connection with our Home Missionary operations-the case of a territorial mission attached to the Free Church of Hilltown, in which the kirk-session of the parent church and the congregation gathered under its auspices differ as to the suitableness of the probationer occupying the field. The former have dismissed the labourer; the latter, to the number of 211, refusing to concur in the act, have withdrawn from the Mission Hall, and petitioned the Presbytery to be allowed to set up for themselves. A motion, made by Mr. W. Wilson, to refuse the prayer of the petition, was rejected; and there the matter rests in the meantime. The Presbytery of Aberdeen has been discussing the question of whether it may and ought to require that its representatives to the Assembly be elected by rotation. Principal Lumsden keenly opposed the proposal to pass a law on the subject, on the ground that such a law would be uncon- The SPRING SYNODS do not call for much notice, as looking Churches, who are at present watching with interest and anxiety the issue of the experiment we have been making during the last quarter of a century to sustain an Ecclesiastical Establishment of national dimensions on the Voluntary system. A few weeks ago a letter appeared in the " Times," in large type and in a prominent place, pointing the eyes of faint-hearted Christians in England-who, in these days of threatened disendowment, might be haunted with dreams of consequent destitution-to the case and history of the Free Church of Scotland; and while constant reference is made in the periodicals of the Ritualists, who have quite made up their minds that a separation between the Church and State must take place in this country soon, and who are anxious, with as little delay as possible, to provide against that contingency,-while constant reference is made by them to what we have shown to be possible, Dr. M'Cosh is about to publish, for the encouragement of our Irish Presbyterian brethren, a sketch of the history of our Sustentation Fund-with the founding of which he was himself personally concerned, and whose course and success, he says, he has continued to watch with a never-flagging interest. We are sorry to hear that our Foreign Mission income is not in the same satisfactory condition. The year threatened to end with a deficit of £900. Happily it was discovered that there lay at Calcutta unappropriated funds to the amount of £600, and these have | reduced the balance against the Committee to £300; but it is a matter of deep regret that the Assembly should require to be met with the report of a deficit at all-especially as the income would need to be considerably larger than it is, in order to meet the reasonable charges which ought to be made against it during the coming year. The cost of living in India is greater than it used to be, and an addition should be made to the salaries of the missionaries; the mission-stations in several instances are under-manned, and if we are to keep our ground the present staff must be increased ; and what is peculiarly trying, we have four young men about to be licensed who have volunteered for foreign services, and we have not the means at present of em chairs, and the final result was the recommendation of It must be extremely gratifying to the Church to learn that the great movement on behalf of the Sustentation Fund has been so far successful that there is now no doubt about the dividend of this year reaching the point so long aimed at—that of £150 for each minister. The increase on the whole Fund for the cleven months is upwards of £7000, and the amount available for the Equal Dividend is within £10 of £6000. A new spirit of liberality in connection with the Sustentation Fund appears to have been awakened, especially among the wealthier members of the Church; and in some instances we understand individual contributions are now being given which have not been equalled in amount since the Disruption. We very heartily rejoice in this state of things, not on our account merely, but on account of on be pondered by the members of the Church. We all know very well that we get, on the whole, a good deal more credit for our liberality than we deserve. It may seem very wonderful to people who never have given themselves, that a poor Church like ours should contribute some £300,000 a year to religious objects; but when we come to look at the thing in detail, we do not find that it involves after all much sacrifice on the part of any number of our individual members. Scotland has grown within the last few years immensely in wealth. The increase in comfort and luxury is visible everywhere to the eye; and considering the deplorable condition of our lapsed masses at home, and the wants of myriads perishing for lack of knowledge abroad, one does feel inclined sometimes to cry out," Is this a time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, while the house of God lies waste ?" Mr. Thomson of Paisley has been renewing the efforts made so successfully last year to provide ordinances for | English-speaking travellers on the Continent. As this new and excellent scheme becomes more perfectly organized, a larger number of stations will be occupied, with probably less expense on the whole to the Church. The active co-operation not only of the United Presbyterian Church but of the American Presbyterians should be solicited. It is well known that a very large proportion of the travellers who take advantage of our services are Americans, and we can conceive of most pleasant consequences following from our Committee entering into negotiations with our brethren on the other side of the Atlantic with a view to united action in this connection. An opportunity may be afforded at the approaching Assembly to have a conference on the subject. We are glad to learn that we are to have among us again delegates from both the Old School and the New School Presbyterians; and, while we heartily trust that they will receive during their stay in Scotland such a welcome as will in some measure express our grateful sense of the magnificent reception afforded in the United States to our own deputation, we hope that advantage will be taken of their presence to draw still closer the bonds which do and ought to unite the several communities which we respectively represent. Among the Continental stations, none appears more interesting than that of Venice. We have just received a letter, dated April 13, from Mr. Campbell of Markinch, whose labours there last year were so highly appreciated, and who has gone out again this year, at the request of the Committee, with the view specially of inquiring into the feasibility of establishing in Italy an institution similar in kind to those which we have in the Presidency cities of India. We wish we could give Mr. Campbell's letter entire, but our space will permit only a short extract from it. He says:— 66 I was long of reaching this place, but still I was in time to witness the deeply-interesting ceremony of the reception of about thirty evangelici into the Waldensian Church, and to be present yesterday at the communion, when about one hundred and fifty actually were present and partook of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The number of communicants is about two hundred, but of course at no one time, in any church, can all be present at the sacred ordinance. The reception on Good Friday of the new brethren and sisters was a deeply touching transaction. One of them was an ex-priest. .... On the Sabbath I could only get to the Italian service after our own service in English was over. We had a very nice little congregation of thirty or forty British and Americans, and I intimated to them what was about to take place in the district of S. S. Giovanni e Paolo. Many would have gone with me, but a perfect deluge of rain was falling, and gondolas were not to be had. As it was, however, Mr. James Dalmahoy and Mr. Haldane of Edinburgh, and Mr. R. Johnson, with his daughter, from Manchester, accompanied me. We were just in time for the sacrament. The place is not very well suited for church purposes, and accordingly little company after company came up and stood round the preacher's desk, and so standing partook of the sacred elements. The pastor and his assistant only said a few words as each new company came up. This was so far well, but a little more time was wanted. Our little band of British Christians joined with the Italians in the ordinance, and we all felt that it was worth the journey to Venice for that one hour alone. Many of the communicants were much affected, some sobbing aloud, while tears were falling from many eyes. .... You may imagine my joy at what I saw during these two days' services. I found all the elements of a prosperous and growing Church; and I have had afresh this borne in upon me, that Venice is ripe not for one but for half-a-dozen of congregations. Were our Waldensian friends to send us half-a-dozen of their best | men, congregations could be found for all. How easy it is to work when God is working!" Our Disruption ministers are fast wearing away. Within the last few weeks God has removed three men -all well known in the Church: Mr. M'Leod of Snizort, Dr. Bannerman, and Mr. Leitch of Stirling. The least prominent of the three was Mr. Leitch-for he confined himself chiefly to the quiet round of pastoral duty-but the blank made by his death in the town of Stirling and neighbourhood will be felt to be immense. "He was a good man, and full of faith and of the Holy Ghost; and during his long and laborious ministry he served his Master with a singleness of eye and a simplicity of heart, which will keep his memory green and fresh in the hearts of very many. The University of Edinburgh recently conferred the degree of D.D. on the Rev. A. B. Davidson, Professor of Hebrew in the New College, and on Rev. A. H. Charteris, Park Church, Glasgow; Rev. W. Lee, Roxburgh (son of the late Principal Lee); Rev. T. Finlayson, Moderator of the United Presbyterian Synod; Rev. W. Robertson of the Greyfriars'; Rev. R. S. Scott, United Presbyterian Church, Manchester; and Rev. Mr. Blakenay, Church of England, Birkenhead. At the same time, the degree of LL.D. was conferred on Rev. H. B. Tristram, author of "Travels in the Holy Land;" Mr. Smith, editor of "The Friend of India;" and Rev. W. Veitch, author of Greek Verbs, Irregular and Defective." The Rev. John Adam of Well-Park Free Church, Glasgow, has also had the degree of D.D. conferred on him by the University of Glasgow. We are sorry that the meeting of the English Presbyterian Synod has fallen too late to be noticed in this number. It was constituted on Monday evening the 20th April, at Sunderland-the Rev. John Reid of Blyth, Northumberland, being elected moderator. It has very important business to transact. The lay element seems making its influence felt in all the Churches at present. In two districts we have observed bodies of elders petitioning Established Pres byteries on the subject of patronage; in Glasgow, a week or two ago, a largely signed memorial of United Presbyterian elders led to a discussion anent the drinking of toasts; and, in our own Church, we have had a number of influential elders' meetings in connection with the Union movement. The series commenced in Edinburgh with a conference, presided over by Lord Ardmillan; it was continued in Aberdeen, where Mr. Niel Smith, jun., was in the chair; and Glasgow followed suit with two meetings, one of officebearers favourable to Union, the other of such as sympathized with the minority in last Assembly. Our space forbids any particular reference to what was said at those conventions, but we cannot help expressing our satisfaction with the tone which generally prevailed in the last of them. The speakers were evidently men who are prepared to discuss the subject which now divides the Church in the spirit of Christian gentlemen. Loyal-hearted Free Churchmen themselves, they will not impute motives to, or act unkindly or uncandidly toward, their brethren. They are in favour of Union, if it can consistently be accomplished; they propose no such extreme measure as the premature dismissal of the Union Committee; and whether we approve of their resolutions or not, we cannot help feeling respect and cordiality for their proposers. The air is now sensibly clearing. The time for offensive personalities is past. We shall be able to talk of the Church's duty in these eventful times with temper and calmness, and we may confidently hope for an issue which in the end shall seriously affect neither the integrity nor the permanent peace of the Church. UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. The United Presbyterian Church is threatened with the loss simultaneously of its two mission secretaries— Dr. Somerville resigning on account of age and infirmity, Mr. Macgill through a natural desire to secure some repose after ten years of what must have been often extremely harassing work. It will not be easy, however, to fill the place of Mr. Macgill; and as he has not Dr. Somerville's too good excuse for retiring, we are not surprised to see that some Presbyteries are moving with a view to the retaining of his services. A hard case, which we hope will be the means of leading to united action throughout the whole of Scotland, has been for some time before the Presbytery of Glasgow. It is that of the assessing of a mission church at St. Rollox to help to provide a manse and glebe for the quoad sacra parish of Springburn. Within the last few years, a new definition of the term "heritor" has come into use; and now, every little feuar of a cottage and kailyard is invested with the privilege of supporting the ecclesiastical fabrics of the Establishment. In plain terms, Church-rates, which are just about to be abolished in England, are being quietly introduced into Scotland; and we know of Free Church ministers who have contributed to the erection of costly parish churches and to an indefinite amount of improvement on the dwelling-houses of parochial clergy. We don't at all say that the thing is wrong or illegal—although if it is much forced we shall soon hear of poinding in the country as well as in Edinburgh-but we do say that the movement, whoever is responsible for it, is not much in the interest of the Establishment; and in any case, if the feuars of Scotland are to have new burdens laid on them, it is only fair that they should have some new rights. They have a far deeper interest in the parish schoolmaster, for example, than the large heritor can pretend to, and they ought to have at least an equal say with him in his appointment. We had written thus far when, what we regard as rather a grave piece of information, was communicated to us. It is to the effect that two Bills have been very quietly introduced into Parliament to provide that the Established Church may enjoy increased facilities for erecting new parishes, and throwing upon the heritors (including, of course, all the feuars) the burden of the erection and maintenance of the churches. We trust that this will be seen to at once. The United Presbyterian Presbytery of Glasgow has already taken action, and not much will be needed, we are sure, to secure such an expression of opinion from Scotland as will effectually prevent the perpetration of what in present circumstances would be a gross piece of injustice. Dr. Peddie, at a meeting of the Edinburgh Presbytery, held on April 7, gave in the report of a committee which had been appointed to watch over the intro duction of measures affecting the State Church in Ireland. The committee recommended the transmission of a petition to Parliament praying for the withdrawal of State aid from all religious bodies in that country. A motion in terms of this recommendation was made, but it was met by an amendment based on this principle, that "as a Presbytery and a Church of Christ they had nothing to do with politics at all." On the vote being taken, however, the motion was carried by a majority of 37 to 2. Dr. A. Thomson then submitted, in an excellent and temperate speech, a series of resolutions on National Education-one of which provided that "it should be left to the Local School Committee to determine what instruction in religion should be imparted to the schools under their superintendence.” An amendment, that the National System should be purely secular, was lost by 38 to 3. We do not affect to conceal the satisfaction with which we regard these decisive votes—especially as the expression of opinion indicated in the first was re-echoed so emphatically a week later in the Presbytery of Glasgow. In that court, in speaking on a motion to repudiate the minutes of a pro re nata meeting which had been called to petition against the endowment of a Catholic University, Dr. Joseph Brown is reported to have said that "Ecclesiastical Courts should have no communications with Civil Governments;" but although his motion had a good deal more to support it than such an extreme sentiment as that-inasmuch as the pro re nata meeting had resolved to go the length of sending a deputation to London-yet an amendment to sustain entire the action of the Presbytery was carried by the sweeping majority of 45 to 15. Throughout the country generally we observe that the Presbyteries of the United Presbyterian Church are petitioning Parliament in favour of Mr. Gladstone's resolutions. ESTABLISHED CHURCH. The re-appearance of Dr. Norman Macleod after his visit to India will be the great event, no doubt, in the General Assembly of this year. His reception in the East by all denominations was very cordial-he had an opportunity of seeing much-and we sincerely trust that what he may say will have the effect of stimulating the missionary spirit in all the home Churches. As was natural, the Presbyteries throughout the country have been petitioning in favour of the maintenance of the Irish Church. The feeling of hostility to Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions has not, however, been quite universal. Individuals here and there have, though vainly, protested against putting the Irish and Scotch Establishments in the same category, and in several of the Synods the matter has proceeded to a vote. In Fife the motion to maintain the status quo was carried by 12 to 2; in Aberdeen by 24 to 14; and in Merse and Teviotdale by the casting vote of the moderator— 10 taking each side. Overtures on Patronage have gone up from various Presbyteries to the Assembly, but we scarcely think that that question will for the present be seriously stirred. No doubt the feeling is deepening that now Establishments are more than ever upon their trial, and many agree with Dr. Pirie, although they are not quite so outspoken as he is, that it will be necessary in the good time coming, when household suffrage prevails, to popularize the Church as much as possible. But we cannot see that anybody is seeking this particular reform under the constraint of conscience. It is with them a matter of expediency, and not of principle; and as long as that feeling continues, the Church will probably consider it wisest on the whole to "let sleeping dogs lie;" for no saying what might happen if a powerful agitation were to arise on such a subject. CHURCH OF ENGLAND. There is no institution in the country which has been more seriously disturbed of late, by assaults from without and troubles from within, than the Church of England. we may quote a sentence or two from three different English newspapers,-the "Saturday Review" (which we all know)-the "Church Times" (a Ritualistic organ)-and the "Rock," the new penny periodical established by the Evangelicals. It would be idle," says the "Saturday Review," "to pretend to underrate the importance of the decision by which Church Rates have been abolished. We say abolished, for it would be mere affectation to consider Mr. Gladstone's Bill in the light of a compromise. It is abolition, even though the form of the abolition is the very reverse of pure and simple. . . . It is unquestionably a vast step towards the separation of Church and State, supposing that connection to exist, and admitting that the expression is more than a picturesque figure. It may be very desirable for ardent Churchinen to persuade themselves that all this is for the best, and that the exchange of the security of an application to the magistrate, for the higher and holier sanction of conscience and sacred duty, is a benefit to the Church. Of the piety and beauty of these sentiments there can and ought to be no question. . . . The only thing we are anxious that Churchmen should realize is, that the change will be a very real and serious one, and is not to be dealt with by sentimental talk.” The "Church Times" admits the importance of the step, but, with that buoyant faith and courage which never seem to desert the party which it represents, it does not regret the decision. On the contrary, it expects much good to come ultimately out of the evil. 66 We may now have peace," it says, "where before was estrangement; and the missionary work of the Church, especially among Dissenters, can hardly fail to gain by the alteration of the law." On the other hand, the "Rock" cannot reconcile itself to the thing at all; and it anticipates that all manner of evil consequences will follow from it, especially upon the poor. "The Church of England," it says, has always rejoiced in being a free resort of all her members, where indigence and poverty might worship God without any mental disturbance about pew-rents or offertory collections; but in some cases it is so no longer, and the widow's mite has to be subdivided to pay something for the support of divine worship, contrary to all the arrangements and traditions of our ancestors. What has been exceptional now threatens to become universal, if any Abolition Bill-whether Mr. Hardcastle's open and honest one, or Mr. Gladstone's more plausible scheme-shall become law, and take effect in our parishes." 66 Another serious assault on the integrity of the English Church is being made this session in connection with Mr. Coleridge's Bill for THE ABOLITION OF TESTS in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The second reading of the Bill comes on in a few days, and although it is not expected that the end aimed at will be gained during the present year, yet it is so perfectly well understood what will be the issue in the long-run, that the Bishop of London and others are trying to stave off the calamity by means of a compromise. The case on the one side is well stated in a circular-letter which has been recently sent to the Nonconformist ministry of England by Six Dissenting Graduates and Undergraduates of Cambridge. "The universities," say they, are the property of the State, not of the Church of England, and are meant to be seats of national education-not mere Anglican nurseries. Till recently, none but members of that Church were admitted to them, even as students; now Nonconformists may study freely, and compete for the minor rewards, but from the chief privileges and prizes they are still shut out. At Oxford they can take no degree above the incomplete one of Bachelor of Arts; at Cambridge the degree of Master of Arts is given them, it is true, but without a voice.in the government of the university, or the election of its representatives in Parliament; while both at Oxford and Cambridge they are excluded from fellowships, the crowning rewards of ability and merit. These fellowships are in themselves worth, on an average, £250 a year for a various length of time, but are worth far more from their connection with college preferments and social position. . . . We therefore beg you to ponder the gravity of this subject, to bring it before the notice of your congregation, and to send in a petition subscribed by so many as feel interested in its design." On the other side, the leading men of the Church plead that, to open the universities in the way proposed, would be practically to commit an act of con fiscation, because hitherto they have been used as schools for the training of the clergy, while, if their government was to be taken out of the Church's hands, strictly denominational colleges would require to be erected. And, more than that, one result only could be expected to follow from the removal of religious tests the secularizing, and ultimately the infidelizing, of the universities. In spite, however, of all the opposition which is offered, the opening of Oxford and Cambridge to all classes of her Majesty's subjects seems certain ere long to take place. They will then cease to be Church of England institutions, and become really national establishments; and those who know what they have been to the Church in time past will understand why so much anxiety is displayed in connection with the changes which it is proposed to make upon their coustitution. There can be no doubt about the fact that the abolition of university tests will bo a serious blow to the supremacy of the Church of England. But worse, a thousand times, than the two evils wo have named-the Abolition of Church Rates and of Religious Tests-is THE DISTRACTED STATE OF THE CHURCH ITSELF. All our readers are aware, in a general way. that Ritualism—which is, of course, just an euphemism for Romanism—is spreading in the Church of England; but we question whether many of them adequately realize the full intensity of the struggle which is now going on. Two powerful organizations have been recently established within the one communion. One, called "The English Church Union," exists for the promotion of what is called the Catholic Revival; the other, entitled "The Church Association," is founded for the extrusion of Ritualism, and the defence and propagation of Protestant truth. Both societies have their central boards and their provincial branches; and you cannot open the pages of any of their many organs without coming within hearing of the clash of arms. The Evangelicals are indignant and impassioned, the Ritualists bold and often contemptuous; and the grounds of the quarrel are so substantial and so vital, that we cannot foresee any legitimate end of the controversy except one which must rend the Church itself asunder. Toleration is an easy plant in the soil of indifference." It is easy for a very Broad Churchman, who has no profound convictions at all, to live under any creed or no creed; but the High Churchmen and the Low Churchmen of England are unquestionably in earnest, and the theory of indefinite "comprehension" can never work pleasantly with them. The English Church at present is, in the most literal sense, a house divided against itself-divided about the very fundamentals of the Christian faith; and how it is to "stand "must be an anxious question to many of its most devoted adherents. We shall have occasion to return frequently to this subject, for nothing that affects a great Protestant communion like the Church of England can ever possibly be without interest to us; and, apart from that, we feel that we are near akin to the great Evangelical party in it which is now contending for truths which we hold in common with them, and we are deeply concerned about that party being guided through the conflict in such a way as to bring nothing but good to the general cause of Christianity. In the meantime, here is a sample of the kind of work in which the Ritualists are engaged. A branch meeting of the "Church Union" was lately held at Bridport, and the following is a report of what took place on the occasion :— “After disposing of certain routine business, the Rev. H. O. Francis proposed the following resolution: That it is desirable to promote, if possible, a more earnest and devout observance of the anniversary of our Saviour's Crucifixion than has usually been paid by the great majority of the people of England. Among other things, he said that he thought the custom of eating cross buns on that day had become harmful, tending to make people look at it as a day for a special kind of feeding. The Rev. C. Woodcock, who seconded the motion, took a higher flight. He suggested the services at St. Alban's, Holborn, as a pattern, with some slight modifications, for country parishes. Nothing,' he added, could be more appropriate or more edifying than the service of "The Three Hours' Agony," and "The Reproaches." Such outward marks as stripping the altar, removing flower vases, veiling the crosses, tolling instead of ringing the bell for all services, and especially tolling at the actual hour of our blessed Lord's death, could not fail to impress the people. But the most distinguishing mark of all was the omission of the Holy Eucharist, and the saying on that day only what were commonly called “table prayers." The Rev. H. Candy proposed a resolution to the effect that more of a joyous character should be imported into the Burial Service. He recommended all present to buy a copy of Mr. Brett's pamphlet on the Burial of the Dead. They would see there patterns of coffins and furniture of a very much better kind than those generally used. Clergymen might procure a small store of such handles, plates, &c., and they would soon find people glad to use them. The Hon. Secretary, who seconded the motion, insisted that the funeral celebration should follow immediately after the lesson, and never be postponed till after the body is buried; as though it were only for the comfort of the mourners, instead of being, as it really is, the Church's last offering for her departed member, (!) the pleading for the departed soul the merits and death of Christ.' He advised also that there should be a coloured pall in every parish-violet with red cross for adults, and white with red or gold cross for children. Where possible, a cross should be borne before the funeral procession, at least through the churchyard, but better still through the streets or village. These improvements' were, however, only to be for communicants. As for the case of all others who had wilfully rejected the communion of the body and blood of Christ, the service, as usually conducted, was only too appropriate; the gloom and woe which pervaded it justly expressing the sadness and anxious doubt with which we must commit their bodies to the ground.'" The childishness of a good deal of this will perhaps be the first thing that strikes the reader, but these external observances are no mere child's play in the estimation of the men who are struggling to introduce them; as, indeed, has been strikingly brought out in connection with the case of Mr. Mackonochie of St. Alban's, Holborn. He was prosecuted before the Court of Arches for introducing illegal rites and ceremonies into his church, and the decision of the presiding judgo in the case was given on Saturday, the 28th of March last. That decision was on the whole hostile to him. He was permitted, indeed, to keep two big candles burning on the altar in broad daylight, for that, it seems, is agreeable to the usages of the Church of England; but he was expressly told that the law forbade the burning of incense, the public mixing of water with wine in the chalice, and the elevation of the Host. Of course, after that, a crowd of people went next day to St. Alban's, to see how Mr. Mackonochie took the judgment; and they were not long left in a state of doubt. The acolyte sent up such clouds of incense from his censer that the very church was darkened with it. We cannot suppose that the man who acted in that way, though he has since professed to submit to the judgment, imagined that he was testifying for trifles. In the presence of this fierce conflict between the Ritualists and the Evangelicals even the Broad Churchmen are becoming alarmed. Hitherto they have affected to look on with a half-amused, half-scornful air. But now they begin to be afraid that the house which, they are in the habit of boasting, is quite large enough for all parties does really run some risk of being brought down about their cars, and they are manifestly looking about in some anxiety for additional supports to prop up the old edifice. They are growing exceedingly courteous and kind, for example, to the Dissenters; and within the last month or two we have had two Deans publicly proposing that steps should be taken with a view to the re-union of the Nonconformists and the Church. Dean Stanley's theory is to make the Church co-extensive with the nation, and to endow all Christian sects, by whatever name they may be called. Dean Alford is not quite so wild, but urges in the meantime friendly cooperation with Dissenters, with the view possibly of incorporation in the end. And a motion introduced lately into the Convocation of York was quite in the same line, to open negotiations with the Wesleyan Methodists, in the hope of bringing them back again also within the pale of the Establishment. It would be unjust to say that these overtures to "the sects" are entirely the result of the pressure of circumstances, for we are told that at least the Dean of Canterbury has long maintained friendly relations with his Dissenting brethren; but we can scarcely doubt that some light is thrown upon the upspringing of so much cordiality by |