for immoral conduct, such as has too often dishonoured the profession of other principles. Thus, while the law of man was set at defiance by one Romish priest, another made it evident that he had no higher regard for the word of God, which ought to be the rule of faith and practice to Christians of every denomination. Praying that this may indeed be the case, I remain, yours truly, JOHN BULMER. Langrove Cottage.

PRAYER FOR THE DOWNFALL OF POPERY.

WE offer the following letter as one entitled to very serious consideration:

Sir,-Being a reader of your periodicals, I have much admired your efforts to expose the varied and numerous evils of Popery, and I hope, not without some degree of success; nevertheless, thousands and tens of thousands of our fellow-subjects remain in utter ignorance of its diabolical and destructive character, and many willingly shut their eyes to its deadly influence. There is, moreover, a prevalent morbid liberality abroad among us, the votaries of which talk of our "Catholic brethren," with more, far more, sympathetic feeling, than of any denomination of Protestants. And I have often admired the adroitness of Papists in catching at any apparently recognizing expression that may fall froin a presumed enemy to their system. It reminds me of Benhadad's messengers, with ropes on their necks, catching at the King of Israel's word, "brother." This, however, is no part of my motive for writing to you now, which is merely to say, I can remember a time when a practice was tolerably prevalent among ministers, and heads of families-my own father among others-in their prayers in the churches, and at family worship, to supplicate for the downfall of the "Man of Sin." Now, why, when "that Wicked" is so busily attempting to extend his influence, should not his downfall be made a subject of prayer still? Is it not a pity that it has fallen into desuetude? It is a strange anomaly, that those who glory in the appellation of Liberals, should favour a system the most inimical to liberty, personal, social, or national, that ever existedto say nothing of its spiritual slavery!

I conclude by asking your opinion, whether it would be desirable for ministers, under present circumstances, to supplicate, in their public prayers, the downfall of Popery?

I am, respected and reverend Sir, your reader and admirer, J. H.

Our own recollections fully harmonize with those of our correspondent. Our first lessons in the knowledge of the evils, the wickedness, and the danger of Popery, were derived from the devotions of the pulpit. Of all methods, this is incomparably the best, the most efficient for implanting deeply, ineradicably, in the youthful heart, the hatred.

of this most hateful system of impiety and imposture. Once duly recognized in the pulpit, it will soon receive the attention which is proper in the prayermeeting, and at the family altar. There is, in very deed, as "J. H." submits, much to be apprehended from the spurious liberality" of our times, which seems determined to consider Antichrist-the enemy of Messiah, and the destroyer of the souls of men!as a very respectable sort of personage, entitled, not merely to civility, but to confidence!--ED.

WHAT HAS POPERY DONE? You claim the liberty to instruct. For some centuries you have held in your hands, at your discretion, at your school, under your ferule, two great nations-Italy and Spain, illustrious among the illustrious; and what have you done with them? I am going to tell you. Thanks to you, Italy, of which no one can think, or even pronounce her name, without inexpressible filial grief-Italy, that mother of genius and of nations, which has diffused over the whole world the most astonishing productions of poetry and art-Italy, which has taught our race to read, does not to-day know how to read herself! Yes, Italy has, of all the states of Europe, the smallest number of native inhabitants who are able to read! Spain, magnificently endowed-Spain, which received from the Romans her first civilization, from the Arabians her second civilization, from Providence, and in spite of you, a worldAmerica; Spain has lost-thanks to you, thanks to your brutal yoke, which is a yoke of degradation-Spain has lost that secret of her power which she received from the Romans, that genius in the arts which she received from the Arabs, that world which God gave her. And in exchange for what you made her lose, what has she received? She has received the Inquisition. The Inquisition, which certain men of a certain party are endeavouring to-day to re-establish with a modest timidity for which I honour them. The Inquisition, which has burned upon the funeral pile five millions of men. Read history! The Inquisition which exhumed the dead, in order to burn them as heretics. Witness Urgel, and Arnault, Count of Forcalquier. The Inquisition, which declares children heretics, even to the second generation. It is true, in order to console Spain for what you have taken from her, that you have surnamed what you have given her Catholic. Ah, do you know you have drawn from one of the greatest of men that dolorous cry which accuses you, "I would much rather that Spain should be great than that she should be Catholic?" See what you have done with that focus of light which you call Italy: you have extinguished it. That colossus which you call Spain, you have undermined. The one is in ruins, the other in ashes. See what you have done for these two great nations.-Victor Hugo.

THE Independent Churches of these realms have not so learned Christ as to require to lean on the opinions of scholars, critics, or theologians, for the support of their peculiar principles. Were all the universities of all the Nations of Europe united on behalf of Popery, or English Episcopacy, or classical Presbytery, or Methodism, certifying that it was in accordance with the Apostolic pattern, as contained in the Divine rule, it would in no respect shake their confidence. They would at once say, "How readest thou?"

We have been led to these remarks from casting our eye on the passage of the admirable Chalmers, contained in his "Institutes of Theology," in which he sets himself against the Independents, refusing to concede to them that which they claim for the Primitive Churches. On the other hand, and more recently, we met with a passage in the new work of Chevalier Bunsen, in which he runs directly in the teeth of the Scotch Professor. It will interest our readers, as well as perhaps tend to soften the asperity of Christian brethren of other views, if we set in iuxtaposition the conflicting notions of these great and excellent men.

CHALMERS ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

THE Controversies about Church government have been exposed to much illogical treatment, from want of a right discrimination between the lawful and the obligatory. Now, even though the Independents should be able to allege, which I am very far from conceding to them, that their mode of Church government had the warrant of Scriptural example, this might establish no more than the lawfulness of that constitution, but not most certainly the exclusive obligation of it. It might be said to have Scriptural authority, but not in the sense of Divine right, which would make it obligatory that we should adopt that form, and that only. According to the testimony of Epiphanius, Church government, instead of being decisively settled in Scripture, was left very much to the discretion of Christian men. Instead of starting from the first with a regular Episcopacy, men found there its establishment through centuries afterward. With Dr. Hill, I concede that the defenders of this order derive a plausible support to themselves from this very fact; seeing they might allege that the limited extension of Christianity precluded, for a considerable time, its complete and regular establishment, but that whenever the requisite enlargement of the faith.

permitted it, we behold the full complements of bishops and parochial clergy. But this is no proof of its Divine right. The analogy fails between it and the Christian Sabbath, for the latter has to allege the universal observance of it, from the very commencement of the apostolic age. And still more, the law of the Sabbath is an unrepealed law of the Decalogue. The Jewish priesthood resembling Episcopacy, in gradation of rank, had no sanction from the Ten Commandments, but was expressly superseded by the priesthood of Christ, was set aside along with all other temple observances, and left the government of the Christian Church to be modelled on the general principle of what was found most for the extension of the Gospel.

The authorities on all sides of the question are gathered from a dimly conjectured region; and without the apparent importance of any great principle being concerned in the argument, it is extremely difficult to work up one's mind to anything like a state of adequate sympathy with the vehemence which is felt and uttered upon these subjects.

For many ages the attention of Christians has been vastly too much expended on the points on which they differ; but now, it is to be hoped, the sentiments they hold in common will be far more the objects of their steadfast and harmonious regard. With the utmost stretch of Christianity, or as some would say, of latitudinarianism, I can yet hold no fellowship with Unitarians in respect to doctrine, or with Catholics in government, the errors of the latter on this subject dethroning Scripture from its supremacy over the faith and conscience of men-being, in fact, the indirect source of all sorts of error in regard to doctrine.

But apart from these, I think we might recognize, in almost every denomination, a personal Christianity, which is not even brought to hazard by the peculiarity of their articles or forms: and without disputing the superior excellency of one sort of government to another, considering the manifold ties of common sentiment and principle between us and the evangelical sectaries of Christendom, it were better that we draw together, and at any rate, that the movement, instead of being one of wider distance and separation, were in the way of kindlier and more intimate converse, than we have hitherto held.

BUNSEN ON THE EARLY CHURCH.

However indisposed, as a German, Bunsen might be to meet with a Democratic institution in the Primitive Church, he has found it there; and neither the English Episcopacy nor the Prussian ecclesiastical fabric finds, according to him, any model or warrant in the practice of the first churches. He gives their practice as follows:

"Every town congregation of ancient

fore you cannot fight." Christianity and war are quite incompatible. In comparing Christianity and war, put the main aspects of the two side by side, and see how far they agree. Christianity saves men; war destroys them. Christianity elevates men; war debases and degrades them. Christi

anity purifies men; war corrupts and defiles them. God says, thou shalt not kill; war says, thou shalt kill. God says, blessed are the peace-makers; war says, blessed are the war-makers. God says, love your enemies; war says, hate them. God says, forgive men their trespasses; war says, forgive them not. God says, resist not evil; war says, you may and must resist evil. God says, bless those who curse you-bless, and curse not; war says, curse those who curse youcurse, and bless not. God says, pray for those who despitefully use you; war says, pray against them, and seek their destruction. God says, see that no man render evil for evil to any man; war says, be sure to render evil for evil to all who injure you. God says, overcome evil with good; war says, overcome evil with evil. God says, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; war says, if you do supply your enemy with food and clothing, you shall be shot as a traitor. God says, do good unto all men; war says, do as much evil as you can to your enemies. God says to all men, love one another; war says, hate and kill one another. God says, they that take the sword shall perish by the sword; war says, they that take the sword shall be saved by the sword. God says, blessed is he that trusteth in the Lord; war says, cursed is such a man, and blessed is he who trusteth in swords and guns. God says, beat your swords into ploughshares, and your spears into pruning-hooks, and learn war no more; war says, make swords and spears still, and continue to learn war, until all mankind have ceased from learning it; i. e., fight all of you, until all of you stop fighting.

M. Lamartine. - Mr. B. puts the matter very strong. I certainly am no admirer of the war; and I doubt not that, in the end, Christianity will utterly exorcise its spirit; but, until nations be largely Christianized, I believe war is inevitable. It is not the Christianity of nations, however, that

fights, but that which stands opposed to Christianity. I conceive when once the Christian element in two nations shall have gained the ascendancy, there will be an end to war between those nations. You cannot apply Christian principles to unchristianized men. There is nothing within to which you can make your appeal; you have nothing to act upon-no fulcrum for your lever. The subject is one which, in all its aspects, is entitled to the deepest consideration, both of the moralist and the statesman. The influence of the military principle on human character in particular, has often greatly interested me. The military character, I have ever thought, presents a striking contradiction. Many of the first soldiers are anything but men of magnanimity. Military courage and moral cowardice are frequently united. Military discipline, in depriving the man of camps and battles of the exercise of his own will, deprives him, more than does any other profession, of that energy of character so necessary in the vicissitudes of political events. It inspires him with personal intrepidity, but divests him of civic constancy. No class yields so much and so quickly in the storm of revolutions as generals. They follow the noble profession of arms, but they follow it under every master; they pass from one court to another, from an empire to a monarchy, from a monarchy to a republic, not like courtiers, but like servantsthe sword of every hand which lends or gives itself to the last person that wears a crown. It is in the ranks of the army that we must look for the heroism of courage; but we rarely find there the heroism of independence.

Governor Washburn (U. S.).—I quite agree as to the general fact, with M. Lamartine; but I do not think there is any necessary connection between military bravery and moral cowardice. Does it not mainly arise from the want of true religion? This moral cowardice certainly was a thing unknown to the army of Cromwell. In that army every man had a Bible in his knapsack, which he daily read, and sung the praises of God; and the result is known to all the world. "The Soldier's Pocket Bible" consisted of appropriate selections from the Scriptures, printed in a pamphlet form. It was generally buttoned between the coat and vest, next to the heart, proving, perhaps, sometimes, a

defence from the weapons of the enemies of their bodies, as well as from the wicked one who sought to subdue their souls. But very few copies of this curious Bible have been preserved. A brief description of it, therefore, may not be uninteresting. The book is now very scarce; but, perhaps, our worthy host may have a copy of it in his large collection there.

Philanthropist.I am happy to say I have. I was looking at it only the other day. It is, I believe, in that book-case there. (Stepping across the room.) Here it is. Now this copy was printed on a single sheet, folded in the 16mo. form, and making sixteen pages. The whole title page is worth reading, as it presents a fair and by no means extravagant specimen of the great titles to little books which prevailed about the time of the Commonwealth. It was printed within a neat border, and reads as follows:

THE

SOUL DIERS

Pocket Bible:

Containing the most (if not all) those places contained in Holy Scripture, which doe shew the qualifications of his inner_man, that is a fit souldier to fight the Lords Battels, both before he fight, in the fight, and after the fight;

Which Scriptures are reduced to several heads, and fitly applied to the Souldiers several occasions, and so may supply the want of the whole Bible, which a Souldier cannot conveniently carry about him: And may bee also usefull for any Christian to meditate upon now, in this miserable time of Warre.

3. A Souldier must pray before he goe to fight.

J. R. A. (a historian) The history of the wars of Cromwell, in Scotland, presents a very striking exemplification of the spirit of his army, and the effect of religion upon them. Let them be called enthusiasts, hypocrites, or whatever else the world pleases, their religion was to them a strong reality. We must all remember how it was exemplified on the dreadful night which preceded the awful battle by which the forces of Scotland were scattered like chaff before the wind. In that dark hour Cromwell told his soldiers "to trust God, and keep their powder dry." With his sick and worn-out army, hemmed in between the ocean and a force much superior in numbers, he firmly relied upon God. They prayed all night; and as day dawned upon them the last many of them could expect to see-every soldier was ready, and shouting "The Lord of Hosts!' they rushed devoutly to the fight! and and in one hour the "Drove of Dunbar attested the powers of these The Scotch army, shivered to utter ruin, rushed, in tumultuous wreck, hither and thither, to Belhaven, or, in their distraction, even to Dunbar; the chase went as far as Haddington. After the first onset, Cromwell made a halt, and sang the 117th psalm, at the foot of Doon Hill. The great question with them was-"Shall God's or Satan's kingdom be established in this land? Shall the gospel of Christ, its liberty, its simple preaching, its practical truth and justice, its renovating power upon the heart, have free course among the people: or shall it be restricted, buried from sight, its power impaired by human authority and Popish forms"

men.

Dr. H. (a Physician). It has often appeared to me very curious, that while Cromwell so thoroughly understood the science of war, and acted with such vigour on the despotic principle which constitutes its very soul, he should have had notions so correct and liberal about liberty of conscience. In his Letters and Speeches I find such sentiments as these:-"Nothing must make a man's conscience a servant. Subtlety may deceive you; integrity never will. Notions will hurt none but "those that have them. Liberty of conscience is a natural right; and he that would have it ought to give it. Is it