In the metaphorical use of the term itself, the degree is left undetermined.

In what particular way the individuals described may have tasted of the unspeakable gift, we are not informed. They may have perceived the excellence of his doctrines-the efficacy of his atonement—the glory of his person-the dignity of his character-the sinlessness of his example. In one or more of these senses, may the phrase be appropriately used. It is not important to know the precise experience which they enjoyed of Christ. Neither its nature nor its extent is revealed. It were therefore idle to speculate, where all is unknown.

The next phrase is, μετόχους γενηθέντας Πνεύματος ἁγίου. I refer this to the extraordinary and miraculous communications of the Holy Spirit in the primitive times, rather than to the ordinary. The influences and operations of the Holy Ghost connected with salvation are frequently mentioned in Scripture, but not in such language, as that the persons saved are said to have been, μετόχους Πνεύματος ἁγίου. Amid the variety of modes in which the believer is described as created anew, sanctified, inhabited by the Spirit, μétoxos yevŋbeìs is not employed. In Heb. iii. 14, we find μέτοχοι γεγόναμεν τοῦ Χριστοῦ; but nowhere do we meet with μéroxoi ПIveúμaros ȧyíov, except here. This, indeed, is only a presumption in favour of the miraculous communications; but, in the absence of every thing definite, the least circumstance is worthy of notice.

Now, there are two aspects in which μέτοχοι γενηθέντες Πνεύματος ἁγίου may be viewed; either as denoting that the persons themselves had been operated upon by the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost residing in others; or that they had been made partakers of the extraordinary communications in such a sense, as that they could heal diseases, and do wonderful works upon other individuals. The former is more consistent with Acts xix. 1-6, Acts viii. 14-19, and other places. The gifts of prophesying and tongues were frequently bestowed by the apostles, when they laid their hands on converts to Christianity at baptism. It is contrary to the tenor of the New Testament, and opposed to history, to assert, that none but the truly regenerate received the Holy Ghost in this extraordinary manner. Such persons were not always savingly converted. Thus we find it written in the Gospel according to Matthew, vii. 22, 23, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

(To be continued.)

ON THE INDIAN ORIGIN OF THE GYPSIES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.

MR. EDITOR,―The following literary notice may not be altogether uninteresting to philologists. When I first arrived in England, after a long residence in the East Indies, I was forcibly struck with the physiognomy of the wandering Gypsies, whom I accidentally met on the public roads. So familiar were their face, their shape and attitude to my mind, that I could almost have addressed them in the vernacular language of Hindustan, and expected from them an answer in that tongue. About the same time I found a vocabulary of the gypsy dialect, published, I think, by Grellman, and though I never had spoken to an individual of that tribe, I fully understood every word in the vocabulary, in consequence of my accurate knowledge of Hindustanee. I have since discovered, that the coincidence between the dialect of Hindustan and that of the Gypsies is now generally acknowledged by learned men, but I have recently met with a farther corroboration of the fact, so extraordinary and so satisfactory, that I determined to give it publicity in your pages. In the year 1837, Mr. George Borrow, an agent of the Bible Society in Madrid, published a translation of the Gospel of Luke into the language of the Gittanos, or Spanish Gypsies: that translation is now in my possession, by the kindness of the Bible Society. I find, as I anticipated, that about one-half of the words in that translation are pure Hindustanee, the remaining words being either Spanish, or, at least, the words common to many languages of southern Europe. The conformity of many of the words to pure Hindustanee is so great, that I can easily read the translation, though, I must confess, it is perhaps, easier to me on the ground of some of its inflections being varied on the principles of the Spanish language, with which a short residence in Spain has also made me slightly acquainted. Thus, I presume to say, no ground of doubt can possibly remain of the Indian origin of that extraordinary race, found in almost every country of Europe, indulging here the same predatory habits which are observed to characterize them in their original country, and whose very countenance must strike every observer as indicative of Asiatic descent. From the few observations I have already made on the book to which I refer, I am satisfied that the original fugitives departed from India before the conquest of their country by the Mahometans, as there is not one word of Arabic or Persian origin contained in this translation, and in cases where in a modern Hindustanee version of Luke words of Arabic origin would now be inserted, to give the sense of the original the Gittano version uses a synonyme of Hindee or Sanskrit derivation. This is decisive as to the fact that the tribe left India before the Mogul conquest. In their

travels to Spain they had sojourned some time in Poland, as they have incorporated into their vocabulary several words purely Polish. I should like to hear from your better informed correspondents some further particulars concerning this people.

SHAGIRD.

REMARKS ON THE PAPER ENTITLED "ANGLICANS IN IRELAND," WITH ITS VINDICATION BY THE WRITER.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.

PERMIT me to make a few observations on the leading article in your Magazine for February last. I do not say that the writer of that article is not a Christian; but certainly the spirit manifested by his many false statements, and sneers at the work of reformation, (in which Lord Farnham bore a conspicuous part) is highly anti-Christian, as respects that reformation, and the turning of many Roman Catholics from their errors. It commenced by a course of lectures on the errors of the Church of Rome, preached by the Rev. Mr. Cooper (an Independent minister) in Dublin some years ago, and seeing the great good these lectures were doing amongst Roman Catholics, many ministers of the established church commenced such lectures, and Dr. Urwick, then of Sligo, also lectured on the subject with good effect; and it is a fact, that, until the errors of the church of Rome were thus publicly preached against, very few of that religion turned from their errors, but since such preaching commenced, very great numbers, indeed, have turned openly from the church of Rome, and many hundreds, I might say thousands, are convinced of the errors of their religion, and would openly leave the church of Rome if they could be protected and supported. However, the good work is still carried on, principally by members of the established churches, and many are still turning, openly hazarding all consequences, and undergoing severe persecutions. It is alleged, that the great opposition of Roman Catholics to the Protestants is occasioned by their being obliged to pay tithes, but this is, by no means, the case. Their opposition is against the protestant doctrine. This is proved by the cir cumstance, that while the established clergy did not preach the Gospel, they were in no way opposed to them, but were strongly opposed to dissenters, who preached the Gospel. I shall take the liberty of mentioning the state of religion, and of religious parties, in Ireland, for some years past, premising that I have been perfectly conversant with the subject for nearly fifty years; indeed, I think I can say in truth, that there is not a single individual who has had better opportunities, or paid more attention to it than I have done. I need not now mention particulars, but hold myself bound to prove the statements I make. I did reside in Ireland until about ten years ago, and still do

spend a great part of my time through that country, and I was through it in the months of September, October, and November last. Until about thirty years ago, very few of the clergy of the established church in that kingdom did preach the Gospel, and many of them were improper in their moral conduct, but since, a great reformation has taken place, and I think I may fairly state, that three-fourths of them now preach the Gospel clearly, and are active in every good work. The character which the writer of the article gives of the clergy of the established church, namely, that nine out of ten, in the north and west of Ireland, have already embraced the leading tenets of the Puseyites, is without the least shadow of foundation, and what he says, viz., that churchmen are endeavouring to induce landlords to put off their estates all dissenters, and that landlords are doing so, and that a dissenter on one estate had been prohibited from seeing his pastor, on pain of ejectment, are also palpably unfounded, and I challenge him to the proof; let him name the parties, and I undertake to disprove what he states. He complains that the established clergy do not cordially associate with dissenters, how could he expect they could do so?-cordially associate with those who had combined with Roman Catholics and Infidels, of every grade, to pull down their church; he distorts the account he gives of the stoppage of the home missions. Respecting the stoppage of the mission, the simple fact is just this: the bishops, and a number of the clergy, thought it better to have more stated ministers in every parish, where wanted, than that stated ministers should leave their charge and go itinerating, and now, when Ireland presents so fine a field for voluntaries to occupy, why do they not establish their system there. But they have been endeavouring to do so for many years without success. The fact is, it cannot be brought into operation in any such country, however it may, in part, be acted on in places where a number of Christians reside. I see that the Independent voluntary minister of Sligo, laments, in a letter to the committee, that they, the voluntaries, have it not in their power to occupy this field. Does not the conduct of voluntaries indicate that they would rather see the field waste, than that it should be cultivated by any other than their own denomination? It will be readily granted by every Christian, who has at all thought on the subject, that there are many thousands of pious Christians in both denominations of the established churches, and that those Christians are as zealously attached to their forms of government and modes of worship, as dissenters are to theirs. Now, I cannot conceive how dissenters can reconcile to their consciences those acts, which they know must irritate and distress, and generate a spirit of disunion and animosity, when union and love should be cherished. Let such dissenters impartially study the question, by, as it were, changing places with the established churches, and suppose those churches joined with Roman Catholics and Infidels, of every class, in endeavouring to induce

government to prevent the people from giving any support to their ministers, what must the feelings of dissenters then be? Oh, when shall the happy period arrive, when "Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim." And now, let me beseech you, and the contributors to your Magazine, to pause, and seriously consider, whether it be your duty, or the duty of any Christian, to act so as to cause disunion, and destroy Christian affection amongst Christians. Even suppose that the established churches were doing you great injury, it is surely your duty to overcome evil with good. Liverpool, April 15th, 1841.

ALEXANDER M'CREERY.

Mr. Alexander M'Creery, of Liverpool, finds great fault with the first article in your February number, On the Anglicans of Ireland. He will not say that the writer is "not a Christian"—he has too much charity for that-but is quite sure that the spirit of his remarks is "highly antichristian." And yet he concludes his letter with the pious exclamation, "Oh, when shall that happy period arrive when Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim ?" and kindly recommends dissenters "to overcome evil with good." So they are endeavouring to do. But, alas, their good is evil spoken of! There are persons, whom submission only provokes to fresh and more contemptuous aggression; and who meet conciliation with scorn. Such seems to be the growing spirit of the party which threatens to carry all before it in the established church. "When will Ephraim cease to enry. Judah?" Without pretending to the gift of prophecy, it will be easy to give Mr. M'Creery an answer to that question-to wit-when Judah ceases to vex Ephraim! Let the "successors of the apostles" cease to oppress, tax, and incarcerate the disciples of Christ, and then, undoubtedly, a better feeling will grow up between them. Supposing that the afflicted dissenters should be a little warm sometimes in their remonstrance to those who abuse "their fellow-servants," your correspondent should remember that " oppression makes a wise man mad."

If Mr. M'C. knew Ireland, as well as he supposes he does, he would be aware, that the proceedings of the late Lord Farnham and his party, in the work of proselytism, have been condemned and lamented by pious and enlightened Christians of all parties, as a disgrace to Protestantism, a triumph to the priests, and a hindrance to the work of genuine conversion. The writer of the article which your correspondent complains of, claims to be far better informed on the state of religious parties in Ireland than his censor, and begs to assure him that his statements are founded on the best authorities, and that, were it necessary for any good purpose, he could bear them out with volumes of facts. He spoke of the state of things in Ireland now, of a revolution which has been going silently on for the last three years; and he spoke from personal knowledge, extensive, various, and accurate; and Mr.