we can see, there is no difficulty in reconciling his principle with a connexion between Church and State, founded on the principle of co-ordinate jurisdiction; but we cannot see how it can possibly be reconciled with the Voluntary principle. We frankly confess that we are glad of this; and that we hope he will never approach nearer the Voluntary principle than he is at present, but rather recede from it, and occupy what we regard as much firmer, because more truly scriptural, ground. It is not our present purpose, however, as we have already said, to scrutinize very narrowly that part of his work which treats of matters requiring a much more full, searching, and calm investigation than he has hitherto been, or is yet, in a position to give. coil. We would not, therefore, expect either from a Churchman who had become a Dissenter, or from a Dissenter who had become a Churchman, a peculiarly correct view of the essential merits and demerits of either the position he had left or that which he had assumed, especially at the very time of his transitionnot because we would doubt the sincerity of the man in either case, but because we would expect to find him fixing his attention almost exclusively on the points of the two systems most strongly contrasted, and attaching to these an undue degree of importance. For this reason, we would not expect from Baptist Noel a very clear view of the essential merits of the principle of establishments, as compared with the Voluntary principle. He has not hitherto been in a position, and he is not yet in a state of mind, to enter upon and prosecute the study of that important sub-first treats of the "Principles of the Union between ject with the dispassionate calmness necessary for arriving at a sound conclusion. We will not, therefore, at present, scrutinize very narrowly that part of Mr Noel's work which treats directly of the principles involved in what he calls the "Union of Church and State." But one passage we feel impelled to extract, as a proof that he does not yet, and we trust never will, hold the Voluntary principle, as it is held by its extreme advocates. Chris "It is the duty of each member of Parliament, of each peer, of each minister of the crown, and of the sovereign, to be a consistent Christian. Rank, wealth, and power, only increase the obligation upon any Cre to obey the will of God declared in the Bible, to set a Christian example, to be a member of a Christian Church, to govern his family tian rules, to train up his children in the fear of God, to discountenance vice, to discourage dissipating and mischievous amusements, to promote Christian missions among the heathen, to aid the diffusion of evangelical instruction at home by liberal contributions, and in all other ways to honour religion. Each member of Parliament is no less bound to make the law of God the exclusive rule of his public conduct. Each public measure should be considered with reference to the Divine will; each vote should be given in the fear of God; and every legislator is called to avow that he is governed in all things by the authority of Christ. Whoever neglects these duties is misusing the gifts of God, and must give account to his Maker for that misuse. The same principles should obviously govern the united action of all the members of the State. They must legislate and govern in the fear of God, according to Scripture, for the glory of God and the good of the nation. Hence their laws must be neither anti-Christian nor immoral-neither unjust nor oppressive; they ought to discourage all profanity and ungodliness among themselves; they should afford to all the agents of Government, to soldiers, sailors, and policemen, opportunities and means of religious improvement. They are further called to protect Christians in their worship, to allow no public hindrance to the preaching of the gospel, to secure the safety of Christian missionaries throughout the empire, to elevate the condition of the aborigines of our colonies, to be upright and fair in their diplomacy, to condemn and to abstain from war, and to aid rather than hinder the prosperity of other nations. Finally, while discharging these Christian duties, they no less owe to their Lord and Redeemer to leave his Churches free from all secular control, to intrude no ministers upon them, to impose no tax on the reluctant for the purposes of religion, and to use no coercion whateer of their subjects in any religious matters." Such is the theory held by Mr Noel regarding the position and duty of the State with regard to religion, as stated by himself. We cannot very well see what our Voluntary friends will make of this. The Voluntary principle has often been succinctly expressed in the following terms:-The State, as such, has nothing to do with religion, and religion nothing to do with the State. Mr Noel says, "The State must legislate and govern in the fear of God, according to Scripture, for the glory of God and the good of the nation." So far as The work is divided into three unequal parts. The the Church and the State." In the introduction to the first chapter, the author gives a definition of the terms Church, State, and Union. His definition of the union is as follows:-"The union between the Church and the State, of which I have to speak, is not the relation of each member of the Church, as a citizen, to the government under which he lives; not his subjection, in common with all his fellow-citizens, to the laws and to the sovereign; but it is the defi nite union between the Church and the Government, which arises from a national payment of the pastor, and the consequent superintendence of him and of the Church by the State." Our readers will do well to mark carefully the essence of this definition—a national payment of the pastor, and the consequent superintendence of him and of the Church by the State. Scottish Presbyterians have not been accustomed to regard the connexion which, till within these few years, subsisted between Church and State in Scotland, as arising out of the "national payment of the pastor;" nor, though that element did exist, did they regard "the superintendence of him and of the Church by the State" as a necessary consequence of such payment, or endowment. From the days of John Knox till now all true Presbyterians held, that the principle of co-ordinate jurisdictions in Church and State was the only principle on which their relations to each other could be established harmoniously and with mutual advantage. But it is true, on the other hand, that Mr Noel's definition correctly describes the state of matters in England, and the terms on which the union between Church and State in that country rested. The union so formed might be accurately enough termed the incorporation, or rather, perhaps, the absorption of the Church by the State. Setting out with that definition, Mr Noel proceeds to point out, in the first chapter, in six sections, as many "general considerations which condemn the union." It is not, as we have said, our present intention to examine his argument: we merely remark, in passing, that, though his considerations may be sufficient to condemn such a union as he has defined, and as has hitherto existed in England, they may have no such force when applied against a connexion between Church and State founded on the principle of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The object of the second chapter is to prove that the "principles of the union between the Church and State in England are condemned by the Word of God." These principles are stated and examined in four sections-1. The Maintenance of Christian Pastors by the State; 2. The Supremacy of the State; 3. Patronage; 4. Coercion. To the argument of the first section we would not attach extreme importance, though it proves very clearly one point, which may be pregnant with serious consequences ere very long -Church property is entirely created by law, and the State has determined upon what terms it shall be held, or to what extent it may be altered, or even entirely abrogated, should the legislature so resolve. But that is a topic on the consideration of which we have no wish to enter. The second section, which treats of the "Supremacy of the State," enters fairly into the heart of the subject. "One consequence," says our author, "arising from the provision which is made by the State for Christian pastors, is, that it claims and exercises the right of superintendence over the Churches." It is not clear to us that this right of superintendence over the Churches, or supremacy, arises out of the provision made by the State for Christian pastors. If the fact of support must necessarily give the right of superintendence, or supremacy, to those who contribute that support, then the seat-holders and others who contribute money for the support of Voluntary Churches, must possess the right of superintendence over those Churches. The supremacy claimed and exercised by the State over the Church of England rests, we apprehend, on a different basis. It seems to us to be the Papal supremacy assumed by the English monarch. This could be proved incontestibly from history, were that our present purpose. At any rate, the fact is certain, that the State claims and exercises absolute supremacy over the Church of England. Mr Noel cites a number of acts of Parliament and canons to prove this point; and he thus states the result: "These statutes plainly declare, that the Crown has all such spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction as has ever been exercised by any spiritual power and authority, whether pope, synod, prelate, or Church-that the Crown may, therefore, exercise all Church discipline for the correction of heresy, schism, and sin of every kind-that bishops and pastors have no manner of spiritual jurisdiction within the Churches, but from the Crown--that the Crown may delegate its spiritual authority to ecclesiastical lawyers, who may exercise all Church discipline within the Churches in its name. And by the canons above mentioned, all ministers of the Church of England must acknowledge this supremacy of the Crown in spiritual things, must faithfully keep and observe these statutes, by which it has been declared and confirmed, and must not impeach any part of it, on pain of excommunication." Further, it is proved that though this supreme executive power is in the Crown, the legislature has a still higher and more absolute power over the Church. And when we consider of what kind and character of men the legislature is composed, how utterly destitute of religious principle a large majority of them are, it is impossible not to regard the Church of England as deplorably enslaved. The conclusion which Mr Noel draws is inevitable, and it is truly appalling. "This supremacy of the State, without divine authority, is incompatible with the rights of Christ. The Scripture declares that Christ is the King of his Church, and, therefore, to allow the State to rule over it without his authority is as much treasonable as it would be in Ireland or in Canada to elect a foreigner for its ruler, without reference to the will of our sovereign. Christ is the Head and Master of his Church, as a man is head and master of his own household. And when any Churches, without authority from him, allow spiritual dominion over them to a stranger, they are revolting against his authority, as much as servants would be who, in their master's absence, should invite another to assume the direction of his house. In allowing to the State this spiritual dominion over it, the Church of England has become treasonable, rebellious, adulterous, and unnatural; it is a community with two spiritual kings-a household with two separate masters-a wife with two husbands-a body with two heads." From this supremacy of the State, it follows, that the State can determine the number of prelates and pastors, and select the men-that the State pronounces on the doctrine to be taught in the Establishment-that the supremacy of the State comes into collision with the authority of Christ, respecting the worship of God; and that the State governs the Churches and regulates their discipline, both with regard to ministers and to ordinary members. What, then, is left to the Church? Nothing but abject slavery. This enslaved condition of the Church is very strongly displayed in the section which treats of patronage : "When a patron presents a minister to a bishop to be settled as the pastor of a Church, the Church has no voice in the transaction. The bishop is almost as powerless; for, unless he can prove the nominee to be legally disqualified, he must admit him to the pastoral charge. That the nominee is offensive to the people, infirm, indolent, with little talent, slender theological attainments, and few virtues; that he is ill-tempered or eccentric; that he hunts and shoots, attends at balls, and plays cards, are no legal disqualifications. Unless the bishop can prove him to be heretical or immoral, he must admit him to be the pastor, or the patron would obtain damages against the bishop, in an action of quare impedit, in the temporal court; and the rejected nominee would obtain a judgment against him, in the ecclesiastical court, by a suit of duplex querela." With the change of a few words, this would be a very correct account of the present Scottish Establishment, under Lord Aberdeen's Bill: "The mischief," says the honourable and reverend author, "which is done to a Church by the appointment of an ungodly minister, demonstrates the magnitude of the injury which the whole Establishment must suffer from this cause. If it be as intolerable an evil to an evangelical Church to have an ungodly pastor, as for a flock to have a wolf for its shepherd, a crew, when tossed by the tempest, to have a drunkard for their captain, or for an army in an enemy's country to have a traitor for their general, it must be intolerable to the Establishment to have many of its Churches misled by such pastors. But, as long as the system of patronage lasts, this evil must continue. The rich patrons of this country are not generally evangelical and godly, and therefore do not nominate evangelical and godly pastors; and ungodly pastors can never form and build up evangelical and godly Churches. Thus this single evil of pa tronage secures that the Churches of the Establishment shall continue, as they have ever been, to a great extent ignorant and irreligious. Irreligious patrons are a corrupt foundation for the Establishment, which no improvements in the detail of its administration can ever rectify; and patronage must ever be a source of mischief so prolific, that the Churches of the Establishment, without such miracles of grace as this disregard of the authority of Christ forbids us to expect, must still remain ignorant and irreligious.” Dark as this picture is, it is not too dark for the reality, as the experience of even Scotland has testified, though the power of patronage was never so absolute in this country as in England till the enactment of Lord Aberdeen's Bill, which has rendered the Scottish Establishment as thoroughly enslaved as that of England. The fourth section relates to the evils resulting from the principle of coercion. On that section we do not think it necessary to dwell, as every one must feel that coercive proceedings cannot but create strong prejudices against the system in support of which they are employed. The first part of the work concludes with a summary, from which we extract the following clear and vigorous sentences: "The union of the Churches with the State in this country rests upon four main principles-the legal maintenance of the pastors, the supremacy of the State, patronage, and compulsion. In supporting this union, Christians, who are charged by the authority of Christ to support their own pastors, have devolved this duty upon the State; and being bound to interpret and enforce Christ's law for themselves, they have committed to the State, that is, to the world, the right to superintend them-thus allowing the supremacy of the world to encroach upon the supremacy of Christ. It is Christ's declared will that they should select their pastors with the greatest care, according to the direction which he has left for this purpose; and they have left the nomination of their pastors to others who are for the most part men of the world, not reserving to themselves even the liberty of objecting to the intrusive nominee. And while every offering to God should be free, and Christian ministers ought to receive no contribution which can hinder their usefulness, Anglican Christians allow the State to alienate thousands from the gospel by compelling them to pay for the support of good and bad pastors indiscriminately on pain of the spoliation of their goods. The support of the first of these principles of the union involves Anglican Christians in the guilt of a selfish and covetous disregard of positive duty. Their allowance of the State supremacy is infidelity to Christ, their King and Head. The third principle which they support is destructive of their spiritual welfare; and the fourth renders them schismatical towards their dissenting brethren, and uncharitable to every other recusant. All these four principles are unscriptural, corrupt, and noxious; and by placing the Churches of Christ under the influence of men of the world, hinder their free action, destroy their spirituality, and perpetuate their corruptions. "Were this union to be now for the first time proposed to Christian men, I believe there is scarcely one who would not instantly repudiate it. Custom alone can account for its continuance. Christians have been familiar with it from their infancy; romantic associations are connected with it; a thousand times they have heard it termed venerable; few ever study the directions of the Word of God upon this subject; governments, patrons, prelates, incumbents, and expectants, are all interested in its stability; and numbers belonging to a large political party dread all innovations, and especially those which would strengthen the popular element in any of our institutions. Erroneous opinions, eagerly embraced and assiduously reiterated, invest it with an air of sacredness. And many who resolutely shut their eyes to the evils which it entails, and who close their ears against all expositions of its corruption, applaud even the blindest and most headlong of its advocates." Part Second of the work is occupied in stating the effects of the union. It will readily be anticipated by every thinking person, that nothing but the worst results can flow from such a union as that which has been described, since what is evil in principle cannot work any other than bad results. But few could frame any adequate conception of the extremely pernicious consequences which have flowed, and cannot but flow, from such a union between Church and State as that which has so long blighted England. The honourable and reverend author has set himself deliberately to describe these effects; and we have not the slightest doubt that his heart bled as he traced the melancholy pages, directing the attention of his readers to matters over which every good man must blush and mourn in shame and sorrow. This part is divided into two chapters: the first showing the influence of the union upon persons; the second, the influence of the union upon things. The first chapter is subdivided into five sections, showing the influence of the union upon-1. Bishops; 2. Pastors; 3. Curates; 4. Members of Anglican Churches; 5. Dissenters. Instead of attempting to give a condensed outline of those sections, we shall adduce a series of extracts, presenting the author's statement, in his own words, of the conclusions at which he has arrived: Influence upon Bishops.-" From this enumeration of some of the functions of a prelate imposed by the State, it is too obvious that a pastor suddenly raised by the fiat of the premier to the prelatic dignity must undergo temptations of no ordinary force. How can one, whose position was so humble, become at once so lofty without giddiness? That smile of a statesman has made him at once a peer, the master of a palace, the owner of a lordly revenue, the successor of apostles. Thenceforth he shines in Parliament, and moves amidst the most splendid circles of the wealthiest nation of the earth; or, retiring to his palace, he administers within its baronial precincts an extended patronage, wields an absolute sceptre over onethird of his clergy, and by an indefinite prerogative awes and controls the rest, meets with no one to question his opinions or contradict his will, and may look along a lengthened vista of enjoyments to the more dazzling splendour and prerogatives of Lambeth. If a man, under these circumstances, is not deteriorated, he must have extraordinary wisdom and virtue. To the efficiency of most men as ministers of the gospel, these circumstances would be fatal. They would cease to be pastors; their preaching would become lordly, heartless, and infrequent; and they would grow worldly, covetous, self-indulgent, proud, and imperious. If, under all circumstances, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,' wealth, dignity, patronage, and prerogative thus combining, must greatly increase the difficulty." Influence upon Pastors." Amongst pious Anglican pastors it is common to hear strong and even violent denunciation of Popery, which requires no courage, because the thunderer launches his bolts against a despised minority, and is echoed by admiring multitudes. But the ten thousand practical abuses within the Establishment wake no such indignant thunders-the nomination of worldly prelates-the exclusion of the gospel from thousands of parishes in which, by the union, ungodly ministers have the monopoly of spiritual instructionthe easy introduction of irreligious youths into the ministrythe awful desecration of baptism, especially in large civic parishes-the more awful fact, that thirteen thousand Anglican pastors leave some millions of the poor, out of a population of only sixteen millions, utterly untaught the hateful bigotry of the canons, which excommunicate all who recognise any other Churches of Christ in England except our own-the complete fusion of the Church and the world at the Lord's table-the obligation upon every parish minister publicly to thank God for taking to himself the soul of every wicked person in the parish who dies without being excommunicated-the almost total neglect of Scriptural Church discipline-the tyranny of the licence system-the sporting, dancing, and card-playing of many clergymen the Government orders to the Churches of Christ to preach on what topics, and to pray in what terms, the State prescribes-the loud and frequent denunciation of our brethren of other denominations as schismatics-the errors of the articles and of the prayer-book, and the invasion of the regal prerogatives of Christ by the State supremacy-the total absence of self-government, and, therefore, of all self-reformation, in the Establishment, &c. &c. &c.: all these enormous evils are tolerated and concealed. Dissenters are often and eagerly attacked because comparatively weak; but scarcely a tongue condemns the tyranny of the State towards the Anglican Churches, because the State is strong and holds the purse. Some eagerly search into the future, compel unfulfilled prophecy to reveal to them the fate of distant generations; but majestic and momentous events passing before our eyes are overlooked. They keenly discuss what Jerusalem is to be in the millennium, but do not ask what Scotland and the Canton de Vaud are now. There is not a corner or nook of prophetic Scripture which they do not explore, but they know little of what the same Scripture declares of the constitution and discipline of Christian Churches. Books and pamphlets without end solicit attention to the millennium, but scarcely a whisper suggests how existing the Churches are delineated with vehement fidelity, but the Churches are to be purified and revived. The evils without evils within nestle undisturbed." "But what are the pastors of the Anglican Churches in fact? I grieve to write it. There are men among them of great virtues, to whom I gladly do homage. I know and love many faithful, energetic, and sincere servants of Christ; but grieve to write it. Chosen by peers and squires, by colleges and when these exceptions are subtracted, what are the rest? I Church-corporations, by chancellors and State-made prelates, many are made pastors by a corrupt favouritism, many are allured to an uncongenial employment by the income which it offers them, and many embrace the profession of a pastor because they are too dull, inert, or timid, for any other. They have scarcely any theological training, they are pledged to all the errors in the prayer-book and all the abuses sanctioned by the union. They dread reforms, they are servile to patrons, they are intolerant to dissenters; their zeal is crippled by State restrictions, and their indolence tempted by unbounded liberty to indulge it. Severed from the body of the people by their birth, by their early education, by their college life, by their aristocratical association, by their zeal for their ecclesiastical prerogatives, they have little popular influence. Lawyers, men of science, and editors of newspapers, do not listen to them; chartists and socialists dislike and despise them; they scarcely touch the operative millions; they make few converts among the devotees of fashion; and under their leadership the Christian army is inert, timid, and unsuccessful." Influence upon Curates.—“This state of the law places 5,230 curates entirely at the mercy of the bishops. If a curate is too evangelical or too friendly towards pious dissenters, or denies the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, or blames the canons, or offends the great by his faithful preaching, he may be as blameless as Daniel and as devoted as Paul, but the bishop may revoke his licence without assigning any reason, and may expel him altogether from his diocese. The worst felon in her Majesty's dominions cannot be condemned without trial before a jury; but a minister of Christ, of the highest qualifications, the greatest capacity, and the most devoted zeal, may be driven from his flock, deprived of his income, and sent forth an exile from the diocese, without any trial-nay, without any reason, except the autocratic fiat of the ordinary. And this has been re-enacted within the present reign! "It may occur to the reader that such a curate would, in reality, suffer no great hardship, since he would instantly be welcomed by other bishops. But the forty-eighth canon enacts as follows: Curates and ministers, if they remove from one diocese to another, shall not, by any means, be admitted to serve without testimony of the bishop of the diocese whence they came, in writing, of their honesty, ability, and conformity to the ecclesiastical laws of the Church of England.' When, therefore, a bishop revokes his licence, and drives a curate from his diocese, as he will not countersign any testimony in his favour, and without his testimony no other bishop can canonically receive the curate, the arbitrary act which expels the curate from one diocese drives him, in reality, from all, and sentences him to dissent or starvation. Should he venture to preach without a licence, he would be liable to excommunication; whereupon, after forty days, a writ de excommunicato capiendo may issue against him out of Chancery, and, being imprisoned, he may have to endure all the consequences which the State has attached to Episcopal fulminations. It is not clear that he can, with impunity, seek a provision for his family even as a layman, for, by the seventy-sixth canon, 'No man being admitted a deacon or minister shall from henceforth voluntarily relinquish the same, nor afterwards use himself in the course of his life as a layman, upon pain of excommunication.' Excommunication meets him whether he exercise his ministry or renounce it, and he must either satisfy the bishop or starve. 66 Thus, on the one hand, if a curate conforms himself in every respect to the will of a bishop, zealously upholds the supremacy, maintains the unerring wisdom of the prayerbook, the immaculate truth of each of the thirty-nine articles, and the authority of the canons, then peace and plenty are before him; nay, possibly, he may himself climb to the pinnacles of ecclesiastical greatness-to a peerage and a palace; but if he maintains the authority of Christ against the spiritual authority of the State, examines with hearty allegiance the truth, the doctrines, and the discipline of the Establishment; if he condemns the authority of the canons, and in any way comes into collision with the prejudices and the passions of the diocesan, then he is at the mercy of an irresponsible autocracy, which may at any moment ruin his prospects and blight his fame. Such circumstances interdict, if Î mistake not, to the curates of England all fearless, generous, and independent search after truth. I have noticed before the influence of a complicated system of ecclesiastical law, and of unrestricted patronage, in❘ the same direction. "There is, further, a very disagreeable addition likely to be made to the character of a young curate by the circumstances of his condition. Deterred by consequences so tremendous from questioning any doctrine of the prayer-book, he must defend the formula of his ordination to the priesthood. Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.' By these words he is tempted to believe that he has received the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hauds. Then he is called to ponder the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth canons, which condemn as schismatics all dissenting congregations, and excommunicate those who own them to be Churches of Christ; he reflects, also, that he is the legal pastor of the parish exclusively patronized by the State; and when to this is added his exclusive training at an exclusive school and in an exclusive college, with exclusive reading and exclusive friendships, and the constant recurrence of exclusive charges of bishops and archdeacons, it is to be expected that each young curate will imbibe Anglo-Catholic inflation. More especially, if he has been thrust upon his parish in order to secure the family living, without talent, knowledge, or piety, he is almost sure to protect himself against his non-conformist rival by lofty pretensions, boldly and blindly denounce dissent as schism, and thus unite with his timid servility to the great, an arrogant exclusiveness towards the disciples and ministers of Christ." (Pp. 318-322.) Influence on Members of Anglican Churches.-" On the whole, it is most melancholy to contrast what the Anglican Churches ought to be with what they are. They ought to be composed of saints and faithful brethren,' under the superintendence of able and faithful pastors. They ought to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world' epistles of Christ, known and read of all men'-the soldiers of truth clothed in a divine panoply, and earnestly contending for the faith-each separate member an evangelist to his neighbours, and all together aiming at the conquest of the whole nation for Christ. "But they are a confused mass of believers and unbelievers, allowing strangers to impose upon them multitudes of ungodly pastors, who bring a spiritual blight upon them, and whose ministry they nevertheless support. The scriptural discipline, which is essential to the purity and vigour of Christian Churches, they have wholly abandoned. For the plaguestricken multitudes round them they do almost nothing. If the pastors are often exclusive and schismatical, so are some of them. They associate freely, both at their own tables and at the Lord's table, with his enemies, from whom they ought to separate, and live in almost total separation from his nonconformist followers, with whom they ought to be united. Few are evangelists to the poor; few teach in Sunday-schools, and of these few scarcely any are educated men. They see round them whole villages degraded by ignorance and vice, and suffer them to live and die untaught and unwarned. Fa mily and personal religion languishes. Few heads of families expound the Scriptures to their children and servants, or pray with them, except by the repetitions of a book. Trained in so heartless a manner, the children of religious parents frequently relapse into total worldliness; and the world recruits its forces from those who ought to have become the servants. of the Redeemer. Upon the masses of the working-class, the myriads of fashion, and the whole army of scientific and literary men, Anglican Christians make scarcely any impression, while a latent and wide infidelity is making unchecked ravages among them. In this Laodicean lukewarmness the Churches ought to repent, to meet for discussion and mutual exhortation-should unitedly and fervently supplicate the gift of the Holy Spirit, and begin to labour for the conversion of sinners and their own spiritual improvement. But, except to go through the Sunday services, they never meet as Churches; they have no brotherly association, no social prayer, no acts of humiliation, no effort for spiritual revival. "Nor is it easy to see how, under the union, any great improvement can be effected. State supremacy and aristocratic patronage secure that the Establishment shall continue for ever a worldly corporation. As a representative government must ever reflect the attributes of its constituency, so long as the majority of the people are worldly, the State must be worldly too: a worldly State must generally raise worldly nominees to the bench of bishops; and worldly bishops will ordain, without scruple, young men as worldly as themselves. Further, as the patrons, who are rich and great, are likely, as a class, to be worldly, and the pastors must generally resemble the patrons by whom they are chosen, the pastors must generally be worldly; and as the Churches cannot generally rise in spirituality beyond their pastors, the Churches must be worldly too. So that worldly bishops and worldly patrons are likely to secure in perpetuity worldly pastors and worldly Churches throughout the land." (Pp. 330-333.) Influence upon Dissenters." Let us now recapitulate the evils which the union inflicts upon dissenters. By exalting a rival denomination it necessarily depresses them, and by branding them as schismatics shuts them out from the society and the sympathy of their fellow-Christians. It impedes their efforts to instruct the ignorant; it allures the children of their wealthier members to desert them, and thus impoverishes their ministers, their schools, their colleges, and their missions; it deprives them of their share of advantage from the ecclesiastical property of the nation; it forces them, by the payment of Church-rates, to support an ecclesiastical system which they condemn; and, by compelling them to seek a political remedy for a great political grievance, it exposes them to the censure and dislike of their fellow-Christians, as a turbulent political party who merit the severest reprehension. (Pp. 343, 344.) The second chapter, which treats of the influence of the union upon things, is subdivided into eleven sections, showing the influence of the union upon 1. The Number of Ministers; 2. The Distribution of Ministers; 3. The Maintenance of Ministers; 4. The Doctrine taught in the Anglican Churches; 5. The Discipline of the Anglican Churches; 6. The Evangelization of the Country; 7. The Union of Christians; 8. The Reformation of the Churches; 9. The Progress of Religion in the Country; 10. The Government; and, 11. Other National Establishments throughout the World. Our space will not permit us to attempt any analysis of the topics contained in this chapter. We have perused and reperused it with pity and terrorpity, that such should be the condition of England and its Church, utterly, incurably, and hopelessly corrupt; and terror, to think of the tremendous consequences that must ere long take place, if some remedial measure be not speedily found. A complete separation between Church and State is the only measure suggested by Mr Noel; and we give, as our last extract, a portion of the summary with which he concludes his mournfully solemn and impressive work: Conclusion. "The union of the Churches with the State is doomed. Condemned by reason and religion, by Scripture and by experience, how can it be allowed to injure the nation much longer? All the main principles upon which it rests are unsound. Its State-salaries, its supremacy, its patronage, its compulsion of payments for the support of religion, are condemned by both the precedents and the precepts of the Word of God. We have seen that it sheds a blighting influence upon prelates, incumbents, curates, and other members of Churches. It adds little to the number of pastors, it distributes them with a wasteful disregard to the wants of the population, and it pays least those whom it ought to pay most liberally. It excludes the gospel from thousands of parishes; it perpetuates corruptions in doctrine; it hinders all scriptural discipline; it desecrates the ordinances of Christ, confounds the Church and the world, foments schism among Christians, and tempts the ministers of Christ both in and out of the Establishment to be eager politicians. Further, it embarrasses successive governments, maintains one chief element of revolution in the country, renders the reformation of the Anglican Churches hopeless, hinders the progress of the gospel throughout the kingdom, and strengthens all the corrupt Papal Establishments of Europe. "Worst of all, it grieves' and 'quenches' the Spirit of God, who cannot be expected largely to bless the Churches which will not put away their sins. "But when it shall be destroyed, we have reason to hope that the Churches will revive in religion speedily. Sound doctrine will then be heard from most of the Anglican pulpits; evangelists will go forth into every part of the land; scriptural discipline will be restored; schisms will be mitigated; Christian ministers will cease to be political partisans; we may look for a larger effusion of the Spirit of God; and England may become the foremost of the nations in godliness and virtue. "Let all who fear and love God arise to accomplish this second Reformation. The work which our martyred forfathers began in the face of the dungeon and the stake, let us in their spirit, complete! We shall probably consider it our duty to resume consideration of this very important work in a subsequent Number, as there are some points of its argument which we have not been able to touch. Meanwhile, let our readers bear in mind, that it is not the work of one who has been accustomed to view the Church of England from a hostile position. It is the work of one who has long been one of the brightest ornaments of that very Church, and who might reasonably anticipate elevation to its highest honours. Nor is it the production of a man of jealous or irritable temper, under the influence of feelings of disappointment or anger. It is the work of a man of singularly amiable, mild, and calm disposition, still more highly refined and hallowed by the gracious power of genuine Christianity. Yet, from such a man has the deep and deliberate conviction of conscience wrung out a work, which seems like the solemn summing up of the Church of England's crimes, preparatory to the pronouncing of her doom. The voice that has thus gone forth cannot be slighted, cannot be recalled, cannot be long arrested. Investigation must follow; and, in such a case, investigation is judgment. THEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF No. II. THE indigested form of these opinions, we have seen, is only paralleled by the progress in error which daily comes to light; and in proceeding with our sketch, we have only to remark, that, while the interests of truth permit no forbearance, we should be sorry to employ terms which accuracy does not demand. It is with the tendency of the views that the public have alone to do; and the line of demarcation where tendency tends, and the motives of their advocates begin, shall be kept well defined before our view. These opinions, however they may trace their origin, are a singular compound of the Rowism of this land, and the strange fire of American revivalism. There is all the visionary pardon without repentance or return to God that comes to light in the former. There is, along with natural feeling lashed into a frenzy, all the proud claim to inherent ability that forms the distinctive feature of the latter. These two factors combined go to produce the rare result of a system, of which the several parts are not only ill assorted but mutually destructive, while the propounders are sanguine in the hope that the two elements will blend. We hear in almost every page, either the daring assumptions of a Finney, or the delusive good news of an Erskine. Sometimes the one element predominates, and sometimes the other; at one time the siren-song of a pardon without repentance allures the victim to the rocks, at another time the claims of a natural ability, that may be called well-nigh divine, seduce him to his ruin. Now they place their followers on the giddy heights of an unreal assurance, based on the sandy foundation that Christ died for them; and at another time the flattering unction of a superhuman power, and of a pride more than mortal, no less terribly assails them. The two elements of which the system is composed are in |