charged often in better health than they have known for years."

It would be easy to add other evidence of the total disregard of physiological laws which prevail among our people. We will only briefly allude to one practice which stands primus inter pares in the bad companionship. We refer to the custom of occupying close rooms, with no adequate provision for ventilation. A blind ignorance or a stupid indifference has prevailed on this subject, which is as unaccountable as it is calamitous. Everybody knows that carbonic acid gas is a deadly poison when breathed into the lungs. Everybody knows also that with every expiration, air charged with this poison is thrown off from the lungs. It would seem to be a plain corollary from these propositions, that provision should be made in every apartment, public and private, for the admission and ejection of an amount of air, precisely equal to that used by those who occupy it. That is, the house should breathe just as fast as those who occupy it breathe. The violation of the great law of life, that fresh air should constantly be supplied to the lungs, is the cause of an immeasurable amount of feebleness and disease. And yet, since the abolition of the ancient fire places, vich contributed so materially to the health and longevity of our forefathers, our chief concern has been to shut out as much as possible, the pure air which God has given in plenteous abundance, for the wants of every living thing. Now the difficulty is not that we do not know how to secure this necessary ventilation, for the laws which govern the movements of hot and cold air are very simple, and may be readily understood by any one who feels their importance. The trouble is, that we do not feel the importance of attention to the subject. Architects and builders seem to have an invincible repugnance to houses that are not air tight. Church Building Committees will waste thousands upon tawdry ornaments and puerile imitation, but grudge every cent that is devoted to ventiducts and ventilators and heated flues. School Committees, thanks to the earnest efforts of some apostles of common school education, are more awake to the importance of ventilation, and make at least a seeming effort to secure it. But these attempts are often laughably inadequate, and their whole mode of procedure indicates only a very feeble and inoperative faith. They act as if they were experimenting with a humbug, and were afraid that they should be caught in the act and laughed at for their folly. We have recently seen a model school house with all the necessary flues arranged for a complete winter ventilation, while the necessary registers

were omitted. When the Committee were interrogated on the subject, they said, that they thought it better to plaster them up until they should be called for. The same thing was done in one of the largest churches in Connecticut, because the builder, in the plenitude of his wisdom, thought that ventilating flues were not needed. In a large school house, perhaps the finest in this state, recently erected at a cost of some $40,000, all the rooms are well ventilated, except the Infant School Room! Very small children do not need fresh air, to breathe! Indeed, no one conversant with the subject will question for a moment the fact that the public mind needs to be thoroughly aroused and instructed upon this whole subject. Our churches, our school rooms, our sleeping apartments, as things are now, are repositories of poison, where deleterious gases are carefully collected and retained as if they were laden with the costliest perfumes, and concealed among their particles the seeds of perennial youth and an immortal life. Now we are prepared to ask any one who doubts the expediency of placing Physiology among the studies of our elementary schools to look at such facts as these, and tell us if ignorance of the great laws of life and health is not to be depricated quite as earnestly as the inability to name the states of Germany, or explain the mysteries of the cube root. How shall we create a public sentiment which shall remove these causes of national decay, except by imparting an accurate knowledge of the rudiments at least of Physiological Science. And how can such knowledge be so thoroughly mastered or so generally diffused as in the various elementary schools, public and private, throughout the land.

In this connection we are happy to state that a more elementary work on Physiology, designed for use in our common schools, has been prepared by the author of the volume under review, and will soon be issued from the press. We hope that the attention of teachers and school committees will be turned, in connection with the issue of this work, to the importance of giving this study a prominent place in our schools.

There is still another aspect of this subject which no believer in Revelation can fail to regard with interest. The study of Natural Science, under the direction of competent instructors, and with the use of suitable text-books, is the best possible security against the inroads of infidelity. The God of Nature is the God of the Bible. Hence it is only necessary to have an accurate and thorough knowledge of Nature, to find strong confirmation therein of the truth of the Holy Scriptures. It is only the "oppositions of science, falsely so called," which Christian

ity has to fear. There is a vast deal of infidelity, few are aware how much, in our Christian communities, which is the offspring of limited and perverted notions of natural science. It is a "little learning" which, in this case, as in many others, is "a dangerous thing." Let our children be thoroughly indoctrinated into the true principles of natural science, and let the relations of this to moral science be clearly pointed out, by one who can not only lay claim to the authority of a savant, but who daily drinks of

"Siloa's brook that flowed Fast by the oracle of God,"

and they are secure against ninety-nine hundredths of the upstart infidelities of the day. In this connection we cannot too highly commend the volume before us. Every page gives evidence that the author has contemplated his subject from a Christian point of view. The fallacy of some of the chiefest arguments of infidelity is fully exposed. We would refer the reader to the conclusion of the chapter on the "Connection of the Mind with the Body," as a specimen of the quiet but conclusive manner in which the author deals with the dogmas of infidelity. The following paragraphs form the conclusion of a very able argument, showing the inevitable tendency of natural science, unmodified by a higher faith in spiritual truth, to the grossest materialism.

I

"I have thus spoken of three sources of evidence in regard to the connection of the mind and the body, and have indicated the character of the evidence furnished by each. have shown particularly that if the attention be confined to that which is furnished by physiology, the mind is apt to be led into materialism. But the attention should not thus be confined. All three kinds of evidence should be employed and should be brought to bear upon each other. If this be done, the discrepancies in the evidence from physiology are cleared up by the evidence afforded by consciousness and revelation, and we see the true value and bearing of the fact, that the specific mental difference between man and animals is not attended with a corresponding structural difference. Though this fact operates merely as conflicting evidence, when taken simply in connection with the rest of the facts developed by physiology; when we come, on the other hand, to take the whole range of evidence from the three sources spoken of, it is exceeding satisfactory as concurring with the testimony of consciousness and revelation. At the same time, those physiological phenomena, which taken by themselves seem to show so strongly that the mind is wholly dependent upon organizations

are so interpreted by the evidence from the other sources, that the dependence is seen to be for the most part a dependence of connection only, the brain being the instrument of the mind.

"The evidence from consciousness and revelation is of the most positive character, and cannot be set aside by evidence from any other source. Other evidence may serve to interpret it, but cannot nullify it. The attempt is sometimes made to set it aside by urging the presumptive evidence of physiology, as if it were absolute proof. But most physiologists engage in no such futile and unchristian efforts, but give due weight to the testimony of consciousness and revelation in all their investigations of the mysterious connection of the mind and the body. The influence of Carpenter, an English physiologist, whose works are more extensively used by students than those of any other physiologist, is especially to be commended in this respect. And although scepticism occasionally utters its plausible falsities, deceiving the superficial and the speculative, we have no fears from present indications that the votaries of physiological science will, as a body, be arrayed in opposition to Christianity." Before leaving the subject, we wish to suggest to ministers of the gospel the importance to them of a familiar acquaintance with the principles of physiology. The reciprocal influence of the body and the mind upon each other, must be thoroughly understood by one who would be wise in winning souls. To distinguish the influences of disease from those that come down from above, to discriminate between nervons depression and conviction of guilt, to discern the characteristics of the intoxication of animal excitement as distinct from the joy of him whose sins are forgiven, is often the delicate and difficult duty of the man who has undertaken the "cure of souls." It is a sad mistake to send one to the confessional who should be borne to the hospital, and a still sadder one to stifle convictions of sin by prescribing recreation and diversion. Pastors and preachers will find much in the work of Dr. Hooker, which they will peruse with deep interest, and much, we are persuaded, which will be of essential service in the difficult duties of their profession.

ART. IX.-HISTORY OF CHANGES IN CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

THE apostolic churches were voluntary associations of professed believers in Christ, drawn together on the ground of a common faith, and for the purpose of maintaining the worship and institutions of the Gospel. Each one was a body by itself, while all were united in bonds of holy fellowship and love. Each had the power of self-government, of chosing its own officers, and of making and administering its own laws, subject only to the law of Christ. In respect to jurisdiction and authority, each was an independent body. No earthly power out of itself could reverse its decisions, or give it laws.

That such was the state of the original churches might be proved by the writings of the Apostles and their immediate successors. Indeed, it is conceded by the most respectable church historians, and those too, having no sympathy with Congregationalism. Thus Waddington, an Episcopalian, says: "On the death of a President, or Bishop, or Pastor, the choice of a successor devolved on the members of the Society. In this election, the people had an equal share; and it is clear that their right in this matter was not barely testimonial, but judicial and elective. His appointment was final, requiring no confirmation from any civil power, or any superior prelate; and thus, in the arrangement of its internal affairs, every church was essentially independent of every other. The churches, thus constituted and regulated, formed a sort of federative body of independent religious communities, dispersed through the greater part of the Roman empire, in continual communication and in constant harmony with each other."*

Mosheim, a Lutheran, speaking of the churches in the first century, says: "All the churches, in those primitive times, were independent bodies, or none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other. For though the churches that were founded by the Apostles frequently had the honor shown them to be consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no judicial authority, no control, no power of giving laws. On the contrary, it is clear as the noonday, that all Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all respects on a footing of equality.'

Speaking of the second century, Mosheim adds: "The form

Ecc. Hist., p. 43.