known to the Union, the means of getting at them so as to find an entrance for the gospel, and the dangerous character of the cheap serials, the need of deeper spirituality in the ministry, the dangers to ministers, arising from that secularism and heresy of which the late John Angell James so faithfully warned them, in his remarkable sermon on "The Rivulet Controversy,"-these, and similar vital topics, if touched at all, were only seen as dissolving views, quickly to pass away; and the great animating theme was an assault upon "The State Church," with a view to its dismemberment, and its being despoiled of its worldly possessions,-all, however, for its spiritual advantage! "The Dissenting Interest" very frequently arrogate to themselves, in juxtaposition with "The Establishment, the designation of "The un-worldly Church." How is this claim sustained? To that really un-worldly man, St. Paul, it was a matter of triumph and joy that he and his fellow Christians were deemed the very "offscouring of the earth"; and his claim, that "they sought not glory of men,' was well sustained. So that the gospel might have free course and be glorified, Paul was satisfied. Not so the "un-worldly Church." They have the land all before them, where to choose their sphere of labour, none caring to molest them. They may, if they can, without let or hindrance, convert the whole population to the voluntary and congregational system; but all this does not suffice them. They claim, upon the census of 1851, on "Religious worship," to have nearly or quite half the people under their system; but, inconsistently enough, they refuse in the House of Commons, in 1860, to concur in a census of the religious profession of the people, which, had their claim been true, would have confirmed it. They writhed under the sarcasm of Sir Cornewall Lewis, and were put hors de combat by the emphatic and reiterated declarations of the Home Secretary and the Premier, in their places in Parliament, that the results of Mr. Horace Mann's Tables, as claimed and used by the dissenting interest, were utterly untrustworthy; accurate as to the figures, but deceptive as to the mode and principle of calculation. They stand, therefore, before the country denuded of their empty boast of numerical equality. Still, they are numerous and strong, and have every appliance of extension which they themselves approve; but all avails not to content them. Haman can have no peace so long as Mordecai sits in the gate. Let me not be deemed as bringing an accusation against the whole body of the dissenters. My firm belief is, that the really pious portion are utterly dissatisfied with these ebullitions of worldly ambition and envious strife; but they are carried away by the resistless current of agitation.

The Patriot newspaper, which was named as specially reporting for the Union, thus describes the Ovation of October, 1861:

"The Union prospers. . . . . Something of the happy tone which pervaded these meetings may be owing to the key-note struck by the Rev. M. Bruce, of Huddersfield, who, with his usual sagacity, hit upon a theme opportune to the season-the Joy of the Christian Believer in his Strength. This was his theme; and, as an impulse to liberal enterprise and sacrifice, no happier subject could have been chosen."

Such an introduction would seem to prepare us for some plans of spiritual exertion for the salvation of the neglected thousands; and mention was made of an effort to erect one hundred chapels; but the Vol. 61.-No. 289.

L

scene now moves on, and the promise of "liberal enterprise and sacrifice seems to be invested with a purely political character. It is directed against "the Establishment." The Patriot continues

"Something, however, of the free and cheerful bearing, which we have remarked as a special characteristic of this meeting, is owing to the stimulus given to the religious emotions of ministers and laymen by the contemplation of those noble confessors of 1662, whose magnanimity and heroism nonconformists are expected to celebrate by some fitting bi-centenary memorial next year-1862. . . . . Mr. Joshua Wilson's paper next day urged the scheme of raising one hundred chapels; but to Dr. VAUGHAN was committed the duty of exhibiting the moral grandeur of the men of 1662. The calm majesty of his (Dr. Vaughan's) attitude and utterance, the sweetness and rhythm of his language, combined to make Dr. Vaughan's oration a master-piece of sacred eloquence."

A few flowers of this sacred eloquence are worthy to be preserved :— "We English Independents have not to wait for the light that has come to us from a Carlyle (?), in order that we might be able to estimate the character of that great Englishman Oliver Cromwell."

Of that "great Englishman" it may be necessary that we should known something more than even Carlyle or Macaulay may please to tell us. Our next "flower" is fragrant indeed :

:

"I do not think that we Nonconformists are altogether out of court in this Church Establishment, and I do not think we should allow ourselves to be put there. Tithes are a tax upon the land. Every tax upon land ends in a tax upon the loaf.the loaf of the poor man and the rich man, of the Dissenter and of the Conformist; and as long as I am taxed for what is called a National Church, I have a right to look to the whereabouts of that church."

Whether I consider this as the deliberate utterance of an educated man, or regard the composition and character of the assembly who cheered him, I am both surprised and ashamed. Had the doctor's master-piece of sacred eloquence been addressed to any of the better informed artisans of these manufacturing towns, they would have left his presence with disgust. I would venture to find him a ploughman who would reply to his argument of "the loaf," by telling him that if the tithe were sold or taken away to-morrow, the farmer's rent would be raised at the next rent day to the full amount of the tithe removed; but, as for the loaf, its price would remain the same. Such declamation as this seemed suited to the penetration of his audience, and was loudly cheered; it was the very gem of his effusion, and the Patriot includes it in his closing remark, saying, "The impression upon the audience was overpowering."

If the dissenting interest desire to rise in the social scale, they must put forward sounder reasoners than Dr. Vaughan as their mouthpiece, or else their Congregational Union must show otherwise than by "loud cheers," that they are able to detect the fallacy of such frothy eloquence. False and childish as the statement is, it has been repeated by the advocates of "the dissenting interest so incontinently, that the eloquent and accomplished Dr. Vaughan allows himself to retail it as sound and true. Dr. Vaughan's "loaf" will not soon be forgotten.

Those who watch the press of the dissenting interest, have not failed to observe, that the commemoration of the heroes of 1662 is found, upon closer examination, to be environed with considerable difficulties; for those "martyrs" accepted a church-state connection,

which is now denounced as inconsistent with pure and undefiled religion; and yet the "ejected" ones were emphatically "puritans." True, the advocates of the Union would seem to say, the ejected were not congregationalists for the most part, but chiefly episcopalians or presbyterians; but this is passed over as a trifling matter.

The Liberator quotes the Patriot thus: "What is proposed to be commemorated and honoured, is not everything they believed, or everything they did, or their opinions on Christian doctrine or ecclesiastical polity, but simply the fact, that they obeyed their personal conscientious convictions at a terrible sacrifice; that they became seceders and nonconformists in spite of an attachment to the principle of an establishment, and with but little repugnance to a moderate episcopacy, because they would not subscribe to what they did not believe, use offices which they deemed unscriptural," &c. &c.; and it is added, "no one body of Christians can fairly claim them, in a strictly denominational sense, as their forefathers."

It seems, then, that the heroes of 1662 are ecclesiastical nondescripts, and have no legitimate successors; but the Patriot has quite justified the present generation of churchmen, who subscribe to what they do believe, and use offices which they deem scriptural, or not unscriptural, and who have not now to deal with the "priestly pretentions" of 1662, nor, since the Toleration Act, with a "system breathing an exclusive and schismatical spirit." Had the 2000 heroes lived in 1861-2, they would have generally, according to this showing, continued in their freeholds and parishes, a few Brownists excepted. It is clear that some of the "interest" comprehend this fact, and have therefore turned their earnest attention to an enterprise of the most uncharitable character, namely, that of impugning the sincerity, and discrediting the Christian character, of what are called the evangelical clergy. It is well known to these political religionists, that the stronghold of the evangelical clergy is in the large towns and populous districts, where the "dissenting interest" has also its chief influence. Dr. Vaughan, in his "master-piece" speech, thus discourses:-"The revival of religion in the Church of England during the last half-century, has been of a marvellous effect." "About forty years ago, the pious episcopalians who felt the want of an evangelical ministry, had to go for the most part in search of it to dissenting chapels. We had large accessions to our places of worship from that circumstance; but that state of things has passed away. "But for that (the revival), by this time, three-fourths of the people of England would have been nonconformists. The evangelical clergy of England have saved the Church of England, thus far; but then, at what cost have they done it? (Hear, hear.) Why, their principles as evangelical clergymen, the very principles that were held by the puritan clergymen of 1662, oblige us to look with painful feelings upon the assent and consent they are compelled to give."

Was ever any insinuation more uncharitable than this? It is not peculiar to Dr. Vaughan; it is the theme of all the tirades that are now issuing from this quarter. Surely it may be said to Dr. Vaughan, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth." These men have a certain theory about state connection with the church, and about endowments.

They seem to assume that theory and themselves to be infallible. The church they demand to have severed from the state; the endowments they demand to have secularized. They will agitate for this, and use every imaginable effort to influence electors and members of the Commons to effect it. They begin their work by attempting to present the evangelical clergy to the electors and others, as a body of most insincere, if not perjured men, who cling to the Church of England with falsehood on their lips, and a lie in their right hand. If the charge means anything, it means this:-This most unchristian and sectarian attempt to bring into suspicion and discredit that body of men in the Church of England, who, as Dr. Vaughan asserts, "have saved the Church of England thus far," and have prevented nonconformists from pervading "three-fourths of the people of England," is as transparent as it is lamentable.

And yet, strange to tell, if Dr. Vaughan has attempted to poison the public mind against us, he has unintentionally provided the antidote. The following is his own deliberate view of that sort of churchmembership which he himself can approve and espouse.

In the "master-piece" speech above quoted, this remarkable passage occurs, and it is well worth a careful perusal. Referring to the restoration and the 2000 ejected ministers, he said of church membership:

"I suppose all of us have more or less to observe things which we should not have ourselves originated. I apprehend that when a thoughtful man connects himself with any religious body, he finds some things there that he would not have put there. But then he takes his ground there, because of the great principles which he does approve; and the church of his choice is not that (church) because it is in all respects such as he would have shaped, but because it comes nearest to his impression of what a New Testament church should be."

Why may not the evangelical clergy be allowed to pass under this code of Dr. Vaughan as honest men?

They have not, like the puritan incumbents referred to by Dr. Vaughan, been required, as he said, "to unsay the controversies of their whole lives," or "to write themselves down as apostates" from their principles. The assent and consent which they have given can extend only to those truths and usages which are not, in their convictions, contrary to the word of God. "There may be things" in the Prayer Book "that they would not have put there," (as Dr. Vaughan said,) "things which they would not have originated," things "not in all respects such as they would have shaped them;" but they adhere to the church of England, " because of the great principles which they do approve."

Dr. Vaughan, however, would thus allure us to escape from our alleged embarrassment, and to embrace the voluntary system. Referring to the bi-centenary collections, he said:

"I trust that not only superannuated ministers, but that the class of pastors who have to labour amid comparatively small churches will not be overlooked. I think that there ought to be something done in a very decided way to endeavour to bring the churches to a right apprehension of the claims of ministerial labour. Our voluntary principle, I know, comes out in this respect in many cases most nobly; but there are cases where I sometimes see it, and I must frankly tell you, I feel utterly ashamed of it. Now, we ought to have a Reform Bill here." "There should be an effort made to secure a more adequate maintenance by our churches of the humbler class of pastors. Let that be, and you will soon find a change for the better." "I am pleading for those who cannot speak for themselves."

Surely this is remarkable. Dr. Vaughan reminds me very forcibly of the fable of the fox that left his tail behind him in a trap, and "agitated" for his species to be docked of theirs, that they might pattern with himself. Certainly, if any of our brethren are not disposed to embrace voluntaryism, they may be fairly excused till Dr. Vaughan's new "Reform Bill" has passed the Congregational Parliament, and until some assurance has been given for its better working in the smaller churches, and among "the humbler class of pastors," who will doubtless appreciate the condescension of Dr. Vaughan in thus kindly patronising them.

Space forbids me to enlarge upon this topic, as the works of the late Mr. J. Angell James and others would well enable me to do.

No Papal conclave, in the assertion of absolute infallibility, could possibly outstrip the pretensions of these theorizing gentlemen. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Their historical references are garbled or partial; their arguments-that of the loaf to wit-are inconclusive and absurd; their spirit towards opponents is, for its uncharitableness, almost without parallel, and for inconsistency not often rivalled. The bombast of their literary organ is simply laughable. Dr. Vaughan rises; "the calm majesty of his attitude and utterance, the sweetness and rhythm of his language"-" a masterpiece of sacred eloquence!"

But we have more yet to come. The first tract, I believe, for the bi-centenary agitation has appeared, dedicated to Mr. Samuel Morley, in which we have this unctuous passage:- "Laud led the way to the scaffold, and king Charles soon followed him, and afterwards there began to reign a real king, a thorough man all over, or, as Carlyle would call him, a sort of DEMI-GOD-OLIVER CROMWELL." The writer of this bi-centenary Tract (" Our Ejected Ministers "), Mr. T. C. Hine, pours out in the preface a libation to Mr. Morley's wealth and worth, which it would be a greater honour to him to refuse with disgust than to accept with satisfaction.

What, then, remains? That we pray for patience; that we labour for peace; that we prepare for a conflict which we cannot now refuse to engage in; and that, by disabusing the public mind, instructing it in the truth, and by perseverance in our own useful work, we prove to the electors of Britain, at the coming general election, that the church of their forefathers is worthy to be defended from the ruthless assaults of its unscrupulous and implacable foes.

St. Thomas's, Birmingham;
Dec. 14, 1861.

Yours faithfully,

NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.

The Work of God in Italy: detailing the Revival and Spread of Evangelical Truth in that Kingdom. By the Rev. W. Owen. London: John F. Shaw and Co., Paternoster Row. 1862.-The desire, now so general, for a knowledge of the work now going on in Italy,