and his committee first, the archbishop afterwards. Why the archdeacon was not prepared with his report we cannot say, nor whether he had received a delicate hint not to be in too much haste about it. At present, however, this great synod of England's clergy stands before the public, wringing its hands with a feeble cry, that it was not allowed to meet because, such the promptitude and such the habits of business of its own committee, its day's work was not cut out for it; a plea which will not raise the Convocation in the respect of laymen; who, with reason or without it, are already but too much given to charge the clergy with a sad want of accuracy and promptitude in the despatch of matters of business. The slight illness of the archbishop was not very courteously-thrown in, evidently as a makeweight, in case the archdeacon's delay should not be thought a sufficient reason for postponing affairs of so much importance. But, however this may be, we have reasons for believing that after the signal proofs of wisdom and moderation which the grave assembly had exhibited during its days of session in February and March, there was an unaccountable reluctance in some quarters to allow it to meet again. It now stands adjourned to the 17th of June. What may then happen we do not venture to predict; perhaps another adjournment, and then another, and so on, till the Greek kalends shall fitly close a series of blunders which the Ides of March began.

Under the high pretensions of the Convocation in England, the Irish church has begun to display a very reasonable jealousy. The diocesan committee of Down and Connor, headed by their bishop, memorialize the lord primate to assemble the Irish Convocation; to whom his grace replies, on behalf of the archbishop of Dublin and himself, that " after the judgment of such able men as Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr. A. J. Stephens, and Mr. Jebb," he "cannot concur in the view put before him in the memorial." The two archbishops, in fact, consider the decisions of the Canterbury Convocation, even if sanctioned by the crown, inoperative until sanctioned in parliament. Nor do their graces think that, if it were possible, it would be at all desirable, "to convene the whole episcopate and representatives of the clergy of every diocese of the united church," merely to alter "a regulation relating to the number of godfathers and godmothers at baptism, while matters of greater importance, which urgently claim the deepest consideration, remain unsettled." A suggestion follows which may soon prove to be of the greatest importance; and, if so, we shall not regret the pains we have taken to draw attention to the doings of our Convocation at Westminster.

"If," says his grace, "at any time a well-considered plan for a general revision of the canons, and of the rubrics,-or for shortening the accustomed services, and adding new occasional services to those contained in the Book of Common Prayer,-or for amending the laws which regulate the discipline of the church,-should be previously framed by the heads of the church and the state, it would seem to me that a National Synod of the United Church is the appropriate body for considering the principle and arranging the details of such a measure, before the introduction into parliament of a bill for giving it legal effect.

"Should an occasion of this kind present itself during the remaining period of my protracted primacy, my best endeavours shall be used to bring about the convening of a National Synod of the United Church. In the resolutions of the Irish parliament preparatory to the Legislative Union, provision was made respecting the meeting of such a synod; but this provision was omitted in the Act of Union, because, as the prime minister stated in the British House of Commons, the sovereign could at any time command the assembling of a Convocation of the United Church.'

"I have consulted the archbishop of Dublin on the subject of the memorial; and it is a great satisfaction to me to know that his grace agrees with me in the sentiments which I have thus expressed in answer to it, and that his grace considers my view of this matter to be correct.'

In 1588 Martin Marprelate addressed "An Epistle to the terrible Priests of the Convocation House." Martin was not a courteous correspondent; but in his letter he gives some good advice. We venture to repeat it; it may gain attention, not for Martin's sake, but because he himself quotes it from a pamphlet by Aylmer, then bishop of London; and so, as we hope and almost venture to anticipate, we will take our last leave of the no longer terrible priests of the Convocation. "Christ," says Aylmer, "knowing the bounds of his office, would not meddle with external policies. No; when he was desired to be arbiter betwixt two brethren, he asked not how the plea stood, but who made him an officer. Divines, methinks, should by this example not give themselves too much of the bridle, and too large a scope to meddle with matters of policy. If these two offices, I mean ecclesiastical and civil, be so jumbled together as it may be lawful for both parties to meddle in both functions, here can be no quiet, or wellordered commonwealth."

We were closing these remarks for the month, when bishop Macilvaine's address to his clergy and their congregations appeared. He declares himself satisfied with the policy of president Lincoln; thinks the war lawful, and exhorts his brethren to discharge their duties as citizens and patriots. The remainder of his address breathes just that tender solemn spirit which was to be expected from bishop Macilvaine. Addresses of a similar character from eminent ministers of Christ have reached us by the same post. We feel that it is not for us to dispute the ground which such men have taken up. Yet it is an awful spectacle; a civil war, with the bishop of Ohio on one side, the scarcely less revered bishop Meade of Virginia (for Virginia has at last joined the secession) upon the other. In England, we trust that none of us will "sin against God in ceasing to pray" for both republics; although the mind of England, slowly made up, has at length decided with an unanimity seldom known on great political questions, that both are wrong.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

WE have received several papers in answer to the Seven Essays, or to some one or other of them. Of some of these we may, perhaps, avail ourselves; but the number of answers published or announced already, and the difficulty we find in making room for one half the subjects of stirring interest which crowd upon us, forbid our making any promises.

R. B., M. B., and several others, must accept our thanks, as well as our correspondents at Clifton, Colchester, Malvern, &c.

Q., in answer to Clericus, argues that the elements form part of the oblation, from the Coronation Service, and from the authority of the late professor Blunt. We cannot defer to either. The Coronation Service is no part of the Book of Common Prayer; and, highly respecting professor Blunt, we differ from him in many points, and on some of considerable importance. Yet we beg the author of the paper in question to accept our thanks.

Some of our readers wish to know whether we intend to reduce the price of the Observer should the duty on paper be repealed. Our answer is, that since the beginning of the year the Observer has been enlarged by the addition of eight pages in each number; though none of our readers seem to have made the discovery, and we do not obtrude such matters on their notice. This enlargement costs us more than the few farthings we shall save by the remission of the paper tax, and we do not profess to run the gauntlet with cheap periodicals.

POSTSCRIPT.-In the "Notes on Dr. Hessey's Lectures," an omission occurs which, though not affecting the argument, conveys an erroneous statement. The passage, "Surely he is aware that our practice dates only from the reformation," should have been, " Surely be is aware that our practice of refusing confirmation to infants dates only from the reformation ;" and in the next sentence, "In all former ages," &c., should have been, “In all the earlier ages," &c.

The Second Edition of our June Number, 1860, containing the article on Essays and Reviews, may be had from our publishers and the other booksellers.

THE faculty of speech, by which man is distinguished from the inferior creation, appears to have been exercised before the dispersion from Babel, without the tendency to infinite and perplexing variety. This is so much its present character, that our great English lexicographer apologizes for the imperfection of his performance, by the inconstancy of language itself. "While some words are budding, others are falling away," &c.

The original unity of language appears to us now a greater marvel than the variety consequent on the confusion of tongues. Such, however, is the recorded fact. "The whole earth was of one language (margin, lip), and of one speech (words)." But the Lord confounded their language, that they should not understand one another's speech. "So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence (Babel) upon the face of all the earth and they left off to build the city." (Gen. xi. 1, 9.) Much might be said to show that this building and dispersion apply chiefly to the descendants of Ham, who (chap. x. 10) began to build Babel. Dathe favours the idea that the tower, erected on an extensive plain, was intended as a beacon, a centre point of union, the effect of which would have been to counteract the command to replenish the earth, by congregating mankind in one huge mass. The fact, however, is, that while so much similarity may be traced between many of the tongues of the various nations dispersed, as to indicate a common origin, yet such a practical difference has all along existed as to fulfil the Divine purpose. Diverse tongues have, like the Oceanus dissociabilis, been the means of separating nations for long ages, and of greatly impeding the progress of both truth and error.

This diversity cannot, either in accordance with the sacred

narrative, or in the view of its practical effects, be considered otherwise than as a curse. It does not, like the countless variety of animals and flowers, serve a peculiar purpose in glorifying the Creator and fulfilling His design. Among the blessings which we may, perhaps, under the ultimate condition of God's people, look for, will be the reversal of this sentence. They may yet have a future unity of language, as of pure doctrine and holy worship. In Zephaniah iii. 9, we read, "For then will I turn to the people a pure language (lip), that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent (shoulder)." This may, indeed, refer rather to purity, than identity of language; still the tendency is in the direction of "one speech"-the primitive form. And the same may possibly be indicated by St. Paul's expression, (1 Cor. xiii. 8), "Whether there be tongues they shall cease:" the necessity for them shall be done away.

During the happiest period of the early church, when they were all of one heart, at the Pentecostal effusion, a remedy was provided for the obstacle to the progress of the gospel presented by the diversity of tongues. Not a miraculous unity of language or of hearing, but a wondrous and intuitive power of speaking in previously unknown tongues. This gift appears to have continued in the church during the lives of the apostles; at all events, until St. Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians. (1 Cor. xii.-xiv.) It became abused, and was now probably withdrawn in consequence, as well as because it had fulfilled its purpose. The seeds of divine truth had been sown among the nations of the known world by the apostles, and it never became extinct. Care was taken by multiplying translations, and by dispersing them among the churches, in the times consequent upon the oral teaching of the first preachers of the faith, to secure the purity of the gospel; which, before the decease of the apostles, had, in the Pauline phrase, been preached to every creature under heaven." It has never ceased to exist in some feeble measure in the nations thus first blest.

It would appear that some believers were endued with the power of speaking languages which they could not themselves interpret, such interpretation being a distinct gift; and that the miraculous gifts, being used promiscuously in the public assemblies, were unprofitable. Nevertheless, the consequence of the withdrawal of these gifts by the restraining power of the Spirit soon became felt; and the small progress of the gospel among the barbarian hordes of Europe, middle Asia, and the vast populations of India and China, may be traced to this source. The irruption of the northern barbarians upon the Roman empire, ending in the incorporation of these tribes into its communities, rendered their conversion, humanly