copal functions in Great Britain, centuries before the Pope sent Augustine to the Saxons; and although, after that, up to the time of the Reformation, she was much corrupted in doctrine, and overrun with fatal errors, yet never from the earliest dawn of her being until now, hath the Church of England ceased to be one body, holding the faith of Christ, and the form of primitive Christianity. To talk, therefore, of the Church being created by a Parliament, or constituted by a State; or, to consider that she is only a favourite community selected out of the mass of sects which retain the fundamental truths of the Gospel,-this they maintain to be entirely a confusion of ideas. The Church of England may rather be said by her laws, influences, and spiritual aids, to have called the State into existence, than to have herself been created by the State. And so, were her connexion with the Government of the country to terminate, she would not lose one jot or tittle of her inviolable claims to be THE Church of this country. What Parliament gave, that it can of course take away. But Parliament did not bestow upon our Church any one spiritual principle, law, or privilege whatsoever; yet, as spiritual functions, and not temporal powers, are essential to a Church,-were the latter to be resumed to-morrow, our Church would still preserve the former, and thus retain all her true dignities and glories as entire as ever."

Contrast with this the following extract from Justice Erle's judgment on the Hampden case:

Upon this review of the act, it appears that the power of nominating bishops is given to the king, and that the archbishop has no authority to judge whether the king has properly exercised that power. On the contrary, the archbishop is made liable to the penalties of præmunire, if he shall not, within twenty days, confirm, invest, and consecrate the bishop whose election or nomination has been signified to him by the king's letters patent. In the argument on this case it was not contended that the archbishop was empowered to sit and judge of the king's nomination. When the bishop has been elected by the dean and chapter, the king is to signify that election by his letters patent, and to require the archbishop to confirm it. This brings us to the question, whether or not the word 'confirm is to be taken as meaning that the archbishop is to try the qualifications of the person elected? According to the general rule, the words of the statute are to be construed in their ordinary sense in all its parts. From this it follows that the command to confirm does not involve any authority to judge of the fitness of the person elected. It is provided by the fifth section, that the election by the dean and chapter shall be good and effectual to all intents; and the command to confirm follows immediately upon this, and is in harmony with it. But an election cannot be good and effectual to all intents, if it is to be voidable by the archbishop. It then says that, upon being elected by the dean and chapter, the person so elected 'shall be reputed and taken by the name of the lord elected of the said dignity and office,' which is incompatible with being liable to be declared disqualified by the archbishop. He is then to take the oath of fealty to the king, who is thereupon to issue his letters

patent to the archbishop, 'commanding him to confirm the said election, and to invest and consecrate him,' within twenty days. This is inconsistent with its being the duty of the archbishop to invite and receive objections, and to decide whether or not they are well founded. I am of opinion that the statute does not impose the duty or give the right alleged to the archbishop. It is said that the word 'confirm,' in reference to bishops, has a technical sense in the Canon Law, and includes an examination into the qualifications of the elected; that this power was exercised throughout the whole Christian world down to the time of Henry VIII., and that the legislature intended the word to be taken in that sense. In support of this view, various passages were cited from the Canon Law, and the form of citing opposers at confirmations, and the advantage of giving this power to the archbishop and people, were much relied on. But these grounds are untenable. The proclamation made at the time of the confirmation was next pressed upon us as favourable to the suggested construction. But this proceeding can be of no avail against the statute. By the statute the election of a bishop is rendered a mere form, and so is the confirmation; for it declares every such election to be good and effectual to all intents."

The Evangelical Alliance is condemned; and in condemning it the high churchman exhibits more of pride than becomes the minister of Christ. He is indignant at the Church of England being called a sect, or being placed side by side with sects. (P. 126.) There is more pride in that note than is at all becoming. Why show so much anger and uncharitableness?

"Are there not two secret fallacies running through the whole of this 'Alliance'? 1. That the Church of Christ has no outward certainty of Apostolic form or function, but is to be considered as altogether an inward choice of the will, to be manifested as personal conscience may dictate. 2. That the Church of England is only one among the 'Sects,' which presume to arrogate to themselves the majestic name of 'Churches!' Now, we do not venture to pass judgment upon our clerical brethren, whose sincerity we admire; but this we will boldly aver,-that if the ancient church of Great Britain be a 'Sect,' then has there never been a visible Church historically realised in the world. Indeed, the whole assumption here is monstrous, and intolerable. Not only does this wretched attempt to prostrate the Apostolical Church of this country unto a level with all that miscellaneous class of Sects and denominations,' which afflict the present century, impugn the Divine Institutes of the Redeemer, and violate the Apostolical canons,—but it gives the lie direct to the national history of England, in the most obvious form." P. 124.

Is this the way the Church of England is to be defended? We have no sympathy with the fierce assaults made against her in our day; we abhor the language that is used in assailing her. But have we more sympathy with such a statement as this, or do we less condemn the lofty exclusiveness which it exhibits? No,

truly. They are both as unlike the Lord or his apostles as we can well conceive.*

The Free Church comes in for a share, both of praise and blame :

“Having been present at the disruption which took place in Scotland, when the Establishment of that country was split into two Bodies, and intimately acquainted with many of those who were considered leaders and guides on both sides of the controversy,—the writer can attest from personal witness, that perhaps a greater amount of religious earnestness never heaved and convulsed the heart of a great and thinking people. An Episcopalian then, who differs totô cœlo from the Geneva ideas of ecclesiastical polity, can yet admire the heroism and revere the self-sacrificing magnanimity of those members of the 'Free Kirk,' who contended for the Headship of Christ, as the Spiritual King of the church. Still, he hopes, his Scottish friends will not take umbrage, when he regrets that in their contention for the Headship of Christ over the church, they did not remember that Christ is Head over Political Society also. In the stately language of our own matchless Hooker, we hold that—The care of religion being common to all societies politic, such societies as do embrace the true Religion have the name of the church given unto every one of them, for distinction from the rest; so that every body politic hath some religion, but the church that religion which is only true. And the church of Jesus Christ is every such political society of men as doth in religion hold that truth which is proper to Christianity. As a politic society it doth maintain religion; as a church that religion which God hath revealed by Jesus Christ.' (Eccles. Pol. B. 8, p. 381.) Far different from these were the sentiments which were then announced by those who professed to battle for the Crown rights of the Redeemer.' In their fiery zeal against Erastian encroachments and laical patronage, some of our brethren drew so dangerous and deep a contrast between a Political and an Ecclesiastical Society, as virtually disenthroned the Redeemer from His Headship over all civil and social institutions. They seemed to forget, that Christ is not only a Spiritual Head, but a Universal Monarch." P. 74.

We are no voluntaries. We hold Christ to be "head over political society" as much as Mr M. No men ever contended more strenuously for this than did those who now form the Free Church. We never considered the one as 66 an anti-Christian antagonism seeking to destroy the other." We maintained, that the civil power, which ought to have aided us in carrying out the laws of Christ, set its face against those laws, and against us in maintaining them. The power that God set up to be for

• Perhaps Mr M. has read

dipus Tyrannus. Does he remember the words of Tiresias to the King, when he accused him of temper ?— Οργὴν ἐμέμψω τὴν εμήν· τὴν σὴν δ ̓ ὁμοῦ ναίουσαν ου κατείδες, ἀλλ' ἐμὲ ψέγεις·

A heathen might teach Mr M. a lesson as to temper,

us turned against us. We wished to obey both the laws of the realm and the laws of Christ. We found that we could not do both if we remained in the Establishment. So we broke the chain. The laws of Christ must be obeyed. Does not Mr M. think the same?

We bear no grudge against our author. We have spoken honestly and faithfully. But we have not spoken in malice, or given way to prejudice or clamour. We have sought to judge righteous judgment. Our reader has the materials before him for judging also. Let him do so without partiality.

Mr M. has many elements of good about him. But he has many of the opposite. He must learn calmness and simplicity, both of thought and style. He must try to be natural. He must be more entirely not only the servant, but the imitator of Him who was meek and lowly,-who loved to bless, not to curse. He must learn what that meaneth, "He that winneth souls is wise."

ART. IV.-Missionary Labours in British Guiana, with Remarks on the Manners, Customs, and Superstitious Rites of the Abori gines. By the Rev. J. H. BERNAU, Missionary of the Church Missionary Society. London: J. F. Shaw, 1847.

CHRISTIAN Countries, though prompt in taking possession of newly discovered regions in the name of their earthly sovereigns, are slow to go up to take possession in the name of the Creator and Redeemer of all the earth. Thus we find in the end of the sixteenth century, Sir Walter Raleigh sailing up the Oroonoko, and planting the British flag in the name of his Queen. But even now, in the middle of the nineteenth, a zealous but ill-backed missionary is feebly endeavouring to maintain a spot in the name of the Lord. He goes not as the agent of Government, but of the Church Missionary Society, the method of whose support is entirely on the voluntary system; though, after gaining a slender foothold in Guiana, the Missionary has gladly put himself and his flock under the pastoral crook of the Bishop of Barbadoes, and the Government has contributed towards the erection of a church.

It was the Moravians who first endeavoured, in 1738, to introduce the gospel into this region. But possessed as it was by nominal Christians, the Dutch planters were the first to impede the endeavours of these good men. They were enriching themselves by the toils of slaves, and slaves could not

with safety be treated as beings responsible to any but their white masters. There being no access allowed for light to their minds, as much in a dungeon of sin and ignorance, as their bodies were in durance of whips and shackles,-the missionaries turned to the Indians. But when, after several years of privation and ill-requited toil, the Indian ear became attentive, and the heart began to open to the good news, so that upwards of two hundred had gathered round the standard of peace, the Dutch planters became alarmed. Among the stratagems used by them to disperse the Christianized sons of the forest, was a report that the missionaries had the secret design of making them slaves. Careless of the severe censure this report passed upon their own injustice as holding slaves, they were willing at any price to rob the poor Indians of confidence in their teachers. After being driven from various stations, just when their message began to meet a favourable reception from the Indians, and suffering many privations, alarms, and deaths in the midst of negro insurrections, and Indian vengeance caused by their credulity of white men's false rumours, the Moravian mission finally expired in 1806. Not however till "many an Indian had departed this life rejoicing in the Saviour, and in sure and certain hope of a resurrection to eternal life."

66

We cannot quit this slight notice of a mission which struggled for 70 years, without recording a name which, though little known to fame, has always warmed our own heart with veneration and love. Mr Dachne, a man of enterprise, of magnanimity and faith above his fellows, dwelt long alone on the Corantyne river; but he said, the gracious presence of my Saviour comforted me, so that I can truly say I spent my time in happiness and peace." Often in want of common necessaries, subject to recurring attacks of fever, exposed to danger from wild beasts and venomous reptiles, still while one Indian would receive instruction, he persevered. For example,-not for one night, like the prophet of old, but "for a long time," a tiger kept watch by his hut, seeking to seize the solitary inhabitant. Night after night he roared most dreadfully; the large watch-fire which Dachne kindled before going to rest, had always expired before morning, and would have proved a miserable defence had not the Lord preserved him. Yet he used not returning day to flee to a more inhabited country, but continued at his post, travelling during the day from hut to hut, however remote or solitary, labouring to instruct the Indians.

Another example of Divine care, which proves that the servant was closely under his Master's protecting eye, we give in the words of our author, though we doubt not many of our readers have been cheered and strengthened by it before.