the view of the city below, the shipping, the harbour, the bay, variegated with islands, and alive with sails, the elegant villas on the outskirts of Boston, the light and airy looking, because chiefly wood-built, suburbs of Charleston, East and South Boston, connected with the city by the long wooden avenues, or bridges, and nearly twenty flourishing little towns, so white in the distance, and the hills to the south-so round and green, all combine in summer to make one wish often to climb to the top of the State-House. Opposite the State-House, on the slope, is the "common," in imitation of the London parks, for walking and driving in, intersected by rows of trees, and enlivened by a sheet of water. It is on a small scale, but a very pretty and pleasant promenade.

I was taken one day through the Court Houses, and into the rooms where the judges were trying causes. To one accustomed to the pomp and circumstance of our Law Courts, the sight was strange indeed. In the Supreme Court, sat four elderly, shrewd-looking gentlemen, one of them apparently past seventy, on a raised platform, with their desks before them; and at a table below, the barristers, &c., all ungowned and unwigged. The most ample and commodious provision is made for the citizens all round, and they go in and out as they please, sitting down among the barristers, witnesses, prisoners and all, it being very difficult to find out which is which. Still, I like the republican simplicity of the judges sitting in their ordinary garb; and Justice seems to me more reverend and severe when not tricked out in that tinsel and finery which are the relics of a barbarous and unlettered age. I have often keenly felt the ridicule poured by Carlyle in his "French Revolution," on such insignia and symbols of "dignities, authorities, holies, and unholies," as are so common among us. "Does not the black African," he asks, "take of sticks and old clothes (say, exported Monmouth-street cast clothes) what will suffice, and of these, cunningly combining them, fabricate for himself an Eidolon (Idol, or Thing seen), and name it Mumbo-Jumbo, which he can thenceforth pray to, with upturned and awe-struck eye, not without hope? The white European mocks, but ought rather to consider and see, whether he, at home, could not do the like, a little more wisely."

I preached three times on the Sabbath after my arrival in Boston; in the morning for the Rev. Mr. Blagden, under whose hospitable roof I was then living. This Church is a building capable of holding upwards of 1,300 people, though we should put many more into a place of the like size. It is of brick, coloured with a greyish hue. It has a tower of the same material, crowned with a wooden spire, light and tall. The whole of the windows have venetian blinds, and so also have the openings in the tower and spire. The Church, which is called the "Old South," is of considerable age, and somewhat celebrated, having been turned into a riding-school by both parties during the wars of the Revolution. It is now fitted up in a very handsome and luxurious style. On each hand of the pulpit, there is a second gallery above the first, that opposite to the minister being occupied by the organ and choir. The seats are all much alike, being painted green, or lined with green cloth and cushioned. I observed a new feature here. Many of the pews contain elbow rests and large fans. The pews and passages are all carpeted. The pulpit is high, and somewhat resembles a long pew, capable of holding half-a-dozen brethren, having in the centre a semicircular projection where the preacher stands. There is no book-board, but the breadth and slope of the top part of the projection is such as to admit of the Bible being placed and resting anywhere. The whole, however, though novel, has a very elegant appearance. The forms of worship resemble those of the English Dissenters. A voluntary on the organ is played for five minutes after the minister takes his place in the pulpit. He then rises, and invokes the Divine blessing on the day's services, in a few petitions which do not occupy more than two or three minutes. Then follows the chapter (this is the order prescribed by the Westminster Directory); afterwards comes a Psalm from Watts's version. During the singing, as in Scotland, the congregation sits. The people, I am sorry to say, left the singing almost entirely to the choir, whose effectiveness did not compensate for those ruder but heartier notes which our worshippers in Scotland pour forth, and with which the Wesleyans in England so stirringly accompany the pealing organ. After the

C

Psalm comes prayer, during which the worshippers stand, in the Old South; (there seems, however, to be no rule on the subject; as elsewhere, the people sit in singing and kneel in prayer; and in some congregations, they stand in singing and sit in prayer;) another Psalm succeeds, followed by the sermon; immediately after which, as in England, there is a short prayer closed with the apostolic benediction. The services of the afternoon and evening are conducted in the same order, with the exception of the "invocation prayer," which is omitted, and the chapter, which is not always read. The "invocation" prayer is a feature in the service I should like exceedingly to see universally introduced into our Church. It is actually prescribed by the Westminster Directory. The congregation was very attentive, though the constant motion of the large palmleaf fans, covered with Chinese figures, was somewhat discomposing, at the first, to one who is accustomed to the still and motionless attention of a Scottish audiThe greater part of the churches here have school-rooms, vestries, and lecture-rooms attached to, and under them, and generally furnish conveniences for promoting religious objects much superior to our own.

ence.

There are few of the pulpits of Boston and its neighbourhood, with the exception of the Episcopal, from which, during the past month, I have not preached, or spoken on the subject of our recent Free Church movement. The response has been most cordial and gratifying, and if the almost unanimous consent of the Church of Christ is any argument in favour of our views and principles, we have it here.

Congregationalism is the prevailing form of Church government in New England, the early settlers, who were English Independents, having handed down to the present generation their distinctive principles of ecclesiastical polity. But however the same in theory, it is here administered practically in a way very different from that which marks the system in Scotland or England. Here it has assumed many of the features of Presbyterianism; and Independency, or the idea of each congregation or Church carrying on its affairs without the interference of other Churches, as such, or by their delegates, has been very generally abandoned. Perhaps it would be more correct to say

that it never existed. There were many more Presbyterians among the early settlers in New England than is generally understood to have been the case. The great body of the early English Puritans, it must never be forgotten, were strongly inclined to Presbytery; and the Congregationalists or Independents among them were a mere handful. It might have been anticipated, therefore, that no inconsiderable proportion of those Puritans who emigrated to America would have predilections in favour of Presbyterianism. And there is much to prove that this was actually the case. The first settlers in New England were, indeed, Congregationalists, and so too were the leading minds among the early Puritans in America. But very large numbers of decided Presbyterians speedily arrived in New England-many thousands, even in the first twenty years and the influence of their principles in modifying the Congregationalism of the country may be seen in the present day. It is a remarkable fact, that in the Churches of the Independents in New England there were, at first, ruling elders as well as pastors and deacons, and that too, before their formal connexion with the Presbyterians. They were, indeed, soon discontinued, but when a union took place between the Independents and Presbyterians of Massachussets, on the basis of the Cambridge platform, drawn up in 1648, the system adopted, though evidently the result of a compromise, was of a kind which clearly indicated that the Presbyterian was much the stronger element of the two. This was still more the case with the Churches of Connecticut, even from the beginning; and their union on the basis of the Saybrook platform, adopted in 1708, which gives the exercise of discipline to the pastor and elders, and makes the determinations of councils definitive and binding, on pain of non-communion, established a system that comes very little short of Presbyterianism. Accordingly, nothing is done here in Boston without councils composed of the pastors of the Churches in the neighbourhood and a delegate from each society. These meet to hear cases of discipline, to decide disputes, to examine into the qualifications of candidates for the ministry, and to ordain or depose. It is true, they say that such councils are merely advisory, and that they do not profess to exercise authority over the Churches; that ordina

tion is not the investiture of the party by them with any authority or standing as a minister of Christ, nor deposition a removal of the same; but that the one is simply an act admitting the pastor of the Church into, and the other is cutting him off for an offence, from their association of Churches. But this is substantially Presbyterianism; for our acts can practically go no further than to separate a minister and his people, if they adhere to him, from our society, unless he submits himself to our decision; and if that decision is founded on the Word of God, both in Congregational and Presbyterian Churches, its effect is to remove him from the office of a minister of Christ, not only in the recognition of the brethren or of the Churches, but in actual fact.

Congregationalism here is, therefore, substantially Presbytery; and hence ministers of the Presbyterian Church in the South have no scruple in becoming ministers of Congregational Churches here, and vice versa; the Churches being quite ready to accept both. There is evidently in New England, ecclesiastical authority without the name, control without the appearance, and the influence of the rulers upon the ruled is not the less real, because it is more gradual and concealed. Obedience is secured, not in consequence of the authority being acknowledged, but by various other influences and restraints almost as irresistible in their operation on the motives of human action. For instance, the Church or minister that does not yield to the judgment of one of these councils, in a matter affecting the unity or purity of the body, as in a case of discipline, is

not in future acknowledged. No communion is held with it, and the pastor is excluded from the pulpits of his brethren. And even the civil law comes in with its aid. If, for example, the question of dismissing a minister were raised by the majority of a congregation, and the matter were brought before a council with the consent of all parties, the decision of the council would be regarded by the civil judges as authoritatively determining the matter. And hence, even when the majority of a Church desired their pastor's dismission, if the council refused to grant and effect the separation, the civil courts could not prevent that majority from having another pastor, or carrying with them the Church; but they could and would lay them under obligation to pay the salary of the minister whom they had rejected and left, contrary to the decision of the council to whom they had referred their case. There is no recognition in law of the standing of an ecclesiastical council; but the old puritan spirit seems still very much to regulate even the administration of civil affairs, and to preserve, so far as it goes, a right relation between Church and State. This is, however, mainly in New England, where the inhabitants are much more homogeneous and less mingled with foreigners than in the other States, preserving more of the features and the spirit of the old country, to which they have a pleasure in tracing their origin.

Beyond the New England States, Congregationalism is hardly known in orthodox communions, except in connexion with the Baptist Churches. (To be continued.)

As many of our readers may not be aware of the merits of this question, which is causing so much stir in the Anglican Church, we shall endeavour in a few sentences to give the pith of the controversy.

The Queen, as head of the English Church, is pleased to order a congé d'élire, or permission to the Dean and Chapter of a vacant see to elect a Bishop. At the same time Her Majesty, or rather Her Majesty's Ministers, Whig, Tory, or

a qualified ecclesiastic for the office. The permission to elect is a mere matter of form, because the recommendation of the Crown is the virtual nomination to the see. By the Act 25 Henry VIII., ch. 20, any dean and chapter refusing to elect the person nominated by the Crown are liable to imprisonment and heavy penalties.

In the present case the Crown has nominated Dr. Hampden, the same about whom there was so great an outcry in 1836, when the Tractarian party tried to keep him from a theological professorship at Oxford, and procured a sentence of censure against him from the University. The leaders of that opposition have since gone to their own place, the Church of Rome; but the semi-Popish and Tractarian principle is so strong in the English Church that an opposition is again got up to the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the see of Hereford. Strong remonstrances are being made to Lord John Russell; extracts are given from Dr. Hampden's writings to prove their heretical tendency, and addresses are sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury to refuse to consecrate the new bishop. Lord John Russell has written a cool reply to a letter of the remonstrant bishops, and does not think that the censure of a majority of the University of Oxford has anything to do with the Royal prerogative in this matter. Henry of Exeter writes a violent reply to the Minister of the Crown, full of declamatory assertion of the wrong that is about to be done to the Church. The Act 25 Henry VIII. Dr. Phillpotts denounces as the "Magna Charta of tyranny," and "the most hateful and tyrannical Act which is permitted to pollute the statute-book." How has the Bishop of Exeter not found out this till now? Well-nigh twenty years have elapsed since he was intruded upon the Dean and Chapter of Exeter by this same hateful and tyrannical Act! And if the censure of the University be of such weight in his Lordship's estimation, how did he permit or invite Dr. Pusey to preach in his diocese when under the censure of the same University ?

As to Dr. Hampden's theology, we cannot say much positively in praise of it, but at the same time, most of what is said against it is false. His views are sound above the average of English

writings there is some tendency to reasoning about truths that ought to be received simply as matters of faith on Scripture testimony. He is more sound than almost all the other bishops, which is not, however, saying much for his orthodoxy. It would do the whole Episcopal Bench good to be thoroughly drilled in the Westminster Assembly's "Shorter Catechism," which contains more solid theology than all the books written by English Churchmen for a century past. On some points, such as the atonement, baptismal regeneration, and the authority of the Church derived from apostolical succession, Dr. Hampden's views are directly at variance with the Tractarian party; and this is the real cause of the animus against him.

Let it be distinctly noted that this opposition to Dr. Hampden is a personal one, and not founded on the principle of Spiritual Independence. The Bishop of Exeter, in his letter to Lord John Russell, acknowledges and strongly approves the right of the Crown to appoint the bishops. And if a Tractarian had been now nominated, there would have been no such ebullition of Church zeal as has taken place. The Scottish Church controversy was based on the great principle of the spiritual independence of the Church in matters ecclesiastical, the election of Church officers being among these. The English Church, on the other hand, both in the election of her bishops by the Crown, and in the appointment of her clergy by patronage or purchase, or other secular influence, is thoroughly Erastian, i.e., under State and secular control in things ecclesiastical. This is a necessary consequence of the principle that the civil magistrate is head of the Anglican Church in all matters civil and ecclesiastical. The English Presbyterian Church, and the Free Church of Scotland, and other Churches holding the Westminster Standards, as drawn up by the English Puritans, assert the spiritual independence of the Church, whether in connexion with the State or disestablished. In the words of the Confession of Faith, they hold that "The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of the Church, has therein appointed a government in the hand of Church officers distinct from the civil magistrate." The position of the Christian members of the Anglican Church is certainly a very degrading one

at present. The clergy must take whatever bishops are set over them by the political ministers of the day! The people must take for the charge of their souls whatever pastors are set over them by the patron of the living or the purchaser of the benefice! And, strange to say, any resistance to this Erastian state of things, and assertion of spiritual independence, is on the part of the Tractarian party, while the so-called Evangelical clergy are tamely submissive to the authority of the civil magistrate in things sacred, as well as in his own secular province. Can they not under stand that there is a medium between Popery and Erastianism? Popery subordinates the civil to the ecclesiastical. Erastianism subordinates the ecclesiastiastical to the civil. But the great Head of the Church has said, "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's." In matters purely ecclesiastical the civil powers ought to have no control; and it was the assertion of this principle, and the refusal of the Government to allow of spiritual independence along with State endowment, that led to that noble movement in Scotland resulting in the formation of the Free Church. The Evangelical clergy in Scotland sacrificed their endowments for the sake of principle. How many of the English clergy are ready to do the same? How many, especially of the "Evangelical" clergy, think it wrong to render unto Cæsar the things that are God's?

If this movement were an insurrection on the part of the Church against the bondage of the State, and a stand for spiritual independence, all our sympathies would be on the side of the remonstrant party. But it is not so much between Whitehall and Canterbury as between Whitehall and Oxford that this conflict lies. We were anxious to see what ground would be taken by the London "Record," as the acknowledged organ of the Evangelical party. Tame and weak as the "Record" is in general on ecclesiastical questions, it is on this not only more tame and weak than usual, but advocates the most abject submission of the Church to political control. "Since the publication of Her Majesty's proclamation for the election of Dr. Hampden, the question resolves itself into this, whether or not a dutiful obedience shall be rendered by the Church to the legal recommendation of

66

Her Majesty!" "Obedience to the law of the land" is, according to the "Record," the conclusive argument. But we remember that the charge of disobedience and disloyalty was brought against the apostles themselves, when they were accused of saying that there was another king, one Jesus. There are times when it is right to obey God rather than man." This the "Record" professed to understand in the Scottish Church controversy, but it is dangerous to raise such questions in England! Principles must yield to policy, and the clergy must be the most obedient humble servants of the Crown, whenever any "legal recommendation" is issued from the Treasury at Whitehall! Besides, if any change or reformation be attempted in the English Church, who knows where it may end? Therefore, "On the whole, we are satisfied that the Church should be upheld on its present foundation." With these characteristic words, the "Record" concludes a long article on Dr. Hamp den's case, and we strongly suspect that this will be the conclusion of the whole matter. Political bishops and State proclamations are not good, but as political patronage and State pay cannot come without them, on the whole things had better remain on their present foundation!

Love leads us to converse with delight on all subjects connected with the glory of God and the good of man.

Humility draws a veil over her own graces, and delicately discovers the excellencies of others. It frankly confesses our own faults, and carefully conceals the failings of our brethren.

Purity, like the refreshing rose, sheds a fragrance peculiarly its own, over the whole conversation; and, like that lovely flower, leaves its reviving scent when we are gone.-Reade.

HE is truly great that is little in his own eyes.

HE is truly wise that accounteth all earthly things loss for Christ.

HE is truly learned who knoweth and doeth the will of God.