« 이전계속 »
convict the Ministry, from the secret correspondence, of having connived with the Czar in his schemes for the partition of Turkey, and to show that the war had been produced exclusively by one man. Several other members participated in the debate, at the end of which the Address, responding to the Queen's announcement that war had been declared, was unanimously voted in both Houses.
The English government immediately on the proclamation of war, issued a declaration of a good deal of interest concerning the rights of neutrals. In order to render the war as little onerous as possible to the powers with whom she remained at peace, the declaration says England is willing to waire, for the present, a part of the belligerent rights appertaining to her by the law of nations. She could not forego the exercise of her right of seizing articles contraband of war, and of preventing neutrals from conveying the enemy's dispatches; and she must also maintain the right of a belligerent to prevent neutrals from breaking any effective blockade sustained by an adequate force. But she would waive the right of seizing enemy's property laden on board a neutral vessel, unless it be contraband of war; nor would she claim the confiscation of neutral property, not being contraband of war, found on board enemy's ships. Being anxious, moreover, to lessen as much as possible the evils of war, and to restrict its operations to the regularly organized forces of the country, it is declared that it is not her present intention to issue letters of marque for the commissioning of privateers.
On the 11th of April, Lord John Russell withdrew the Reform Bill which he had introduced as a Government measure at the beginning of the session. He acknowledged that the Ministry was pledged to it, and said that his confidence in its justice and propriety had not been in the least degree shaken by the criticisms to which it had been subjected. But he said it was evident that the attention of Parliament and of the country was absorbed by the war, and that there was, therefore, no general desire that this measure should be pressed just at present. The Ministry, moreover, must stake its existence on its success, and he did not think the immediate importance of the measure was sufficient to justify them in so doing on the eve of a general war. He declared himself indifferent to the censures which the act would elicit from the opposition, but exhibited and professed deep sensibility to the opinions of the sincere friends and advocates of reform. The withdrawal of the bill was acquiesced in as necessary and proper by the House.
In France, proceedings in regard to the formal opening qf the war have taken place analogous in all respects to those of Great Britain. An Imperial message was read to the Chambers on the 27th of March, announcing that the last resolution of the Cabinet of St. Petersburg had placed Russia in a state of war with respect to France—a war, it is added, the responsibility of which belonged wholly and entirely to the Russian government. The Chambers unanimously pledged the support of France to the war. The same regulations in regard to the rights of neutrals, and the commissioning of privateers, have been adopted in France as in England, and the action of the two countries is made to harmonize on all points. The Duke of Cambridge and Lord Raglan, with a large number of subordinate officers in the British army destined
for the East, passed through Paris on the 11th of April, and were received with imposing demonstrations on the part of the French government and people. A grand review in honor of the Duke took
place on the 12th, in the Champ de Mars. It is
stated that the amount of the French contingent will not be limited to 50,000; indeed it is expected that before the war is over it will exceed 100,000. The Moniteur has published the text of the convention between France and England, which was signed by the representatives of the two powers at London on the 10th of April. The two powers agree (1.) To do what depends on them to bring about the re-establishment of peace between Russia and Turkey on a solid and durable basis, and to guarantee Europe against the return of those lamentable complications which have so disturbed the general peace; (2.) To receive into theiralliance, for the sake of co-operating in the proposed object, any of the other powers of Europe who may wish to join it; (3.) Not to accept, in any event, any overtures for peace, nor to enter into any arrangement with Russia, without having previously deliberated upon it in common ; (4.) They renounce in advance any particular advantage to themselves from the events that may result; (5 ) They agree to supply, according to the necessities of the war, determined by a common agreement, land and sea forces sufficient to meet them.
THE GERMAN STATES. The position of Austria and Prussia in reference to the Eastern war, continues to be a source of perplexity and anxiety. Both these powers have dccla/ed their determination to maintain a complete neutrality. The Prussian Chambers granted permission to the King to raise a loan required, but not until after very positive assurances from the Minister of War that union with Russia was utterly impossible, and then only upon the adoption of resolutions designed to pledge the government to a close co-operation with the other German States, and to efforts for the speedy restoration of peace on the basis of the Vienna Conference. The leanings of the Prussian Court are supposed to be toward Russia; but the sentiment of the Chambers and of the people is very decidedly the other way. It is stated that a private treaty has been negotiated between Prussia and Austria, intended to pledge them to a united and concerted action, and likely to exert a controlling influence on the action of the smaller German States: The Austrian government continues to give assurances to the Western Powers which are pronounced satisfactory in Parliament, and she has recently sent a very large force to her Eastern frontiers. A good deal of discontent is evinced at her failure to regard the crossing of the Danube by the Russians as a hostile act, and to resent it as such.—"The state of siege in Hungary has been abolished; but the condition of the country is very far from tranquil.
EASTERN EUROPE. On the 12th of April the Russian government published its counter statement in reply to the English Declaration of War. In the presence of such declarations and demands as those made to him by England and France, the Emperor has only to accept the situation assigned to him, reserving to himself to employ all the means which Providence has put in his hands to defend with energy and constancy the honor, independence, and safety, of his empire. All the imputations which they have made against Russia are declared to rest on no foundation whatever. If their honor has been placed in jeopardy, it has been by their own act; for, from the beginning, they have adopted a system of intimidation, which would naturally fail. They made it a point of honor that Russia should bend to them; and because she would not consent to her own humiliation, they say they are hurt in their moral dignity. The policy of aggrandizement, which they attribute to Russia, is refuted by all her acts since 1815. None of her neighbors have had to complain of an attack. The desire of possessing Constantinople has been too solemnly disavowed for any doubts to be entertained on that point which do not originate in a distrust which nothing can cure. Events will soon decide whether Russia or the 'Western Powers have struck the most fatal blow at the independence of Turkey. The Sultan has already renounced, by treaty, the distinguishing privilege of every sovereign power, that of making peace or war at its own free will; and changes in her internal policy have already been exacted, far greater and far more fatal to her independence than any Russia ever desired to secure. It is for Europe, and not for the Western Powers alone, to decide whether the general equilibrium is menaced by the supposed preponderance of Russia; and to consider which weighs heaviest on the freedom of action of states—Russia, left to herself, or a formidable alliance, the pressure of which alarms every neutrality, and uses by turns caresses or threats to compel them to follow in its wake. The true motive of the war has been avowed by the British Ministry to be the abatement of the influence of Russia; and it is to defend that influence—not less necessary to the Russian nation than it is essential to the maintenance of the order and security of the other states—that the Emperor, obliged to embark in war in spite of himself, is about to devote all the means of resistance which are furnished by the devotion and patriotism of his people. He closes by denying that the responsibility of the war rests upon him, and invokes the aid of God, who has so often protected Russia in the day of trial, to assist him once more in this formidable struggle.
The progress of the war thus far has not been marked by any general or decisive engagement. The English fleet in the Baltie, under Admiral Sir Charles Napier, has seized ten Russian merchant vessels, and, at the latest dates, was off Gothland. All the Russian ports have been blockaded. The Russian forces have crossed the Danube at several points, and have taken possession of the Dobrudscha, the peninsular country inclosed between the Danube and the Black Sea. They had also attempted to cross at other points, but were repulsed. About 50,000 Russian troops were on the Turkish side of the river, and were fortifying themselves at various points. The Turks bad fallen back upon Varna, which was supposed to be menaced by the Russian movement, and the English and French fleet in the Black Sea had also moved up to its defense. The Russians have also sent a force into Servia. Rumors are abundant concerning frequent engagements of severity between the Russian and Turkish forces, but they are evidently greatly exaggerated accounts of mere skirmishes.
The war with Russia and the alliance with the West, are making themselves very sensibly felt on
the internal affairs of Turhey, The Sultan has just declared that the possessions of the mosques are the property of the State, and has deposed the Sheik for refusing his assent. This is one of the most important changes to which the internal policy of the Ottoman empire has ever been subjected. The mosques in Turkey form religious corporations, independent of the State, and exercising over it at times unbounded authority, through the ulemas, or doctors of the law and the Koran, who are the sole possessors of the vast wealth belonging to these religious foundations. Turkish landholders, from generation to generation, in consequence of the insecurity of property, and other causes, have been in the habit of making over the fee-simple of their property to the mosques, reserving to themselves only the use of them.for life. In this way it is said that full three-fourths of the soil of Turkey has come to be the property of these religious foundations, held by the ulemas, of whom the Sheik is the head. The confiscation of such a vast amount of the property of the Church to the purposes of the State can not fail to exert a very marked influence on the internal affairs of the empire.
The extensive insurrections of the Greeks, fomented undoubtedly by Russian agents, have been so far countenanced by the Greek government as to lead to the rupture of all diplomatic relations between Greece and Turkey. The Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a note dated April 1, to the Greek Minister, M. Metaxa, sent him his passports, and announced that all diplomatic and commercial relations between the two countries were at an end. It had been proved, he alleged, incontestably, that the Greek government had actually tolerated and aided the insurrectionary movements of which complaint was made. The Greek Chambers had previously refused to concede the measures demanded by the Sultan, hut had positively denied all participation in the insurrection. M. Metaxa replied to the Minister's note, appealing to that Supreme Tribunal whose judgments arc unerring, and whose decrees arc infallible, to decide whether Greece was justly responsible for the revolts which discontent had provoked in Epirus and Thessaly. The British Minister, Lord Stratford de Redeliffe, had issued a circular letter repudiating all sympathy with the Greek insurrection, and declaring the purpose of England and France to sustain the Sultan against all who might threaten the peace and safety of his Empire.
From Japan we have intelligence of some interest concerning the movements of the Russians. From accounts that reach us by way of China, it seems that a Russian fleet, which had been rapidly augmented during the past year, entered the port of Nangasaki, and was received with great pomp by the Governor, after the departure of the squadron of Commodore Perry. A letter from the Russian Chancellor was immediately forwarded to Jeddo; and it is reported that assurances were received in return, that the Emperor had decided within the coming year to throw the commerce of the country open to the whole world, under certain restrictions necessary for the interests of Japan. The American squadron had gone to Loo Choo in January, where Commodore Perry had purchased a naval depot and erected a fort; an officer and small garrison had been left in this fort, and the Commodore had sailed for Jeddo. The report of the death of the Emperor of Japan is confirmed.
THE POSITION OF THE CLERGY among the powers of the age, is a topic closely suggested by the remarks we ventured to make in a previous editorial. Would that we could discuss it in a manner which its importance demands. One thing, however, may be safely affirmed. Whatever may be thought of our strictures or our commendations, they are certainly from the hands of a friend. We yield to no one, not merely in respect for the clergy, but in an earnest desire to sec them occupy the place which alone befits the intrinsic dignity of their calling and its relation to all that is highest or most saving in our humanity.
There is, then, only one place they should occupy. We re;oice when we sec them'in possession of it ; we grieve deeply, as for a most deplorable and calamitous event, when compelled to admit that they have fallen, or are falling, behind it. This place is in the extreme van of the world's true progress, in the "forefront of the hottest battle" with the powers of evil, whether they be the fiends of sin, of ignorance, of false knowledge, false theology, false philosophy, or that most deadly of all Satanic falsities—false sentiment. When we thus speak of the world's progress, no one will mistake our meaning. We have but one idea in the use of the term—progress in truth. And here, too, another kind of cant necessitates a cautioa in the use of language. It is progress, not so much in new truths —there may be a vast accumulation of these without any substantial advance—as in the wider diffusion, the deeper appreciation, and stronger hold of those truths it is most important for man to know— those ancient truths, those never obsolete truths, without which all other progress is but progress in a labyrinth, and all other light but a darkness visAle.
Do our clergy stand boldly and strongly upon this advance position? If any of our remarks take the form of censure, it is in reference to this alone. We can not bear to see Christ's army, and especially his commissioned hosts, occupying any rank behind the first, or falling in the wake of any other movements originated and directed by other and secular minds, whether those movements be for good or evil, in harmony with revelation, or directly opposed to its most vital teachings.
There is among us a tendency to make almost every thing subservient to the political. The Church and the clergy share in it. It is a very common deception to suppose that they arc in no danger of such an influence, in consequence of the abolition of all outward connection between the Church and the State; but mere forms here, or the want of forms, can furnish no protection. The true position of the clergy may be as much affected by falling into the current of popular sentiment in a democracy, as by dependence on any of the ruling powers in a monarchy.
But in other modes besides that of direct subserviency may this vantage ground be lost. Even where the object aimed at is right, is religious, there may be too much importance attached to it in its mere political aspect—an aspect which, if made prominent, is sure, in time, to cast a shade upon the more vital and essential features. Thus Missionary and Bible societies will doubtless advance civilization; Sunday-schools aid the cause of law and order; they promote morals, and are not morals the foundation of our liberties? It is thought good pol
icy to dwell on these secular benefits. Pious people and clergymen, therefore, rejoice when they can get a member of Congress, or an actual or Ex-Governor, or better yet, some old hero of a General to harangue on such utilities before the annual religious gatherings. Politicians, too, are very glad of opportunities for such display. It may be a convenient currency wherewith to buy them votes in some time of political need; or, if it is a want of charity to suspect them of so poor a motive as this, it enables them, at all events, to occupy a new and flattering position, where their political greatness appears to more striking advantage in their condeseendingpMtronagc of the Church and the Church's movements. Now in all this it is doubtless supposed that the State and statesmen arc made subservient to the spiritual kingdom ; and yet there may be room for a doubt, at least, whether the real effect may not be directly the reverse. Through the continued dwelling upon the secular benefits-—either by politicians directly, on such occasions, or by clergymen out of a conciliating deference to the politician —the worldly side of all these questions becomes predominant, the spiritual power is lost, and thus there is eventually a failure even in that secular good 'which might have been secured had it only been kept in its subordinate place. Religion will cease to be politically useful when its political utility is presented as the true or pretended ground of its support. In other words, it will no longer be religion, but a base and fur from harmless counterfeit. The best things, when debased, are ever the source of the direst mischiefs. This is the peril at which we hold those priceless gifts—the Christian Revelation and the Christian Church.
There can be no doubt that the tendency, at the present day, is to magnify the political, the social, the secular, or what may be called the worldlyhumanitarian aspects connected with professedly religious movements. Even on the anniversary platform it is becoming almost as common to hear about the regeneration of the race as the salvation IA souls. The millennium is to be ushered in by political movements, and be itself a sort of politicoreligious golden age. Christianity is to cover the earth with railroads and telegraphs, and these, again, to diffuse Christianity with a speed unknown to apostolic times. It may be thought that this is making fast friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness; but is there not some reason to fear that in such a course, instead of the Church's spiritualizing the world, the world will secularize the Church, or that it will be made as completely subservient as though it had been bound to the State by some direct and clearly-defined connection?
It is this same feeling that leads religious men, and especially clergymen, to be peculiarly sensitive about certain points in which the State may be supposed to possess an outward religious character, and which are, therefore, prized at far more than their intrinsic value. We have an example in what is often said in respect to Congressional chaplains. A nation that expressly banishes prayer, or religious acts of any kind, from its public proceedings, can not be called a Christian nation. And yet if the practice is only the result of a hollow condescension, if it is only adopted to show how graciously the politician can manifest his respect for the utilities of religion; above all, if it comes to be looked upon as furnishing a part of "the spoils," as the prize and the temptation of worldly and time-serving clergymen, it is hard to say which would be worse, the heathenism of the exclusion, or the blasphemy of the observance. We would touch lightly upon this point, but there are other cases where charity must be strained to the utmost to invent even the semblance of truthfulness. When we hear of the political caucus being opened by prayer—when we call to mind the long course of selfish, dark intrigue that has preceded some one of these patriotic gatherings—when we think of the train of manaeu vres that have attended its organization, and then that some clergyman has been invited to invoke Heaven's guidance for men who have come there with minds made up to follow the guidance alone of their own corrupt party interests—when we read the formal resolution by which he has been graciously requested to implore divine illumination for a body whose whole machinery of action has been planned by "the wisdom that is of the earth," if not from below the earth, and which does not expect to be influenced in one single vote or measure by "the wisdom which is from above"—no language can characterize too severely the profanity of the whole proceeding. The political trifling with the highest earthly interests of mankind, bad as that may be, is not so bad as this direct insult to Heaven. The clergyman—honest and pious man—does doubtless fancy that he is doing great service to the cause of religion. He is filled with hope and triumph, perhaps, at the thought of the worldly powers thus seeking aid of the spiritual kingdom. But alas, it all contributes to the movement of which we have been speaking. The spoil-hunting faction has felt the need of no divine guidance, has cared for no divine guidance, has received no divine guidance; but another step has been taken in that movement which would make the spiritual subservient to the secular, and the chief value of the Church to consist in its political utility. No clergyman should ever officiate clerically in such a caucus, until he has some reason to believe that its after-scenes will not be in most direct contrast with its religious initiation.
Our clerical friends will bear with us, if we point out some other cases which, in our editorial judgment, furnish illustrations of the same tendency. Too much importance is attached to mere religious profession in our public men. From the way in which it is sometimes treated in our religious newspapers, it would really seem as though they regarded it as a boon to Christianity that it should be professed by a member of Congress, or the Governor of a State. Above all, that a President should show respect to religion, is thought worthy of the most grateful acknowledgment. The testimony of so great a man as he must surely be, is certainly invaluable. That he should maintain a devout attitude during the service, should clearly pronounce the responses, or should actually stand up during the whole of the prayer, are facts worthy to be trumpeted throughout the land, as full of hope for the progress and triumph of the Gospel.
A few years ago we well recollect reading, in one of our religious papers, a letter from a correspondent in Washington, containing a statement of the members of Congress who were also members of the Church. The writer had obtained his information from the most reliable sources; and it was doubtless thought that the publication would do great good to the cause of Christianity. We doubt not the perfect purity of motive which influenced the editor and his correspondent. They were good men, intelligent
men, learned men, better men every way than their censor—and yet we can not help distrusting the wisdom of the proceeding. The malign, cunning, sneering infidel might well ask—What is this professed Christianity which is thus to be hunted out like a light under a bed or a bushel? What kind of professors are those who, instead of being known by their acts, must have the census of their unknown statisties so laboriously taken? The discovery is all the more remarkable from the strange coincidences it brings to light. How comes it that the votes of these followers of Christ should ever be found in such exact correspondence with certain party connections? No exceptions here. There they stand ever, rank and file, column against column, like pieces upon a chess-board—men of the same religious profession in this strange and unaccountable relation to each other—the same steady disagreement with their Christian brethren of the opposite political party, the same unvarying agreement with the men of the world who belong to their own. What explanation can be given of this remarkable phenomenon? Should not religious sympathy sometimes snap the political cord? Are both parties always in the right? Or is there some evidence here of an allegiance which, is stronger, if not higher, than the spiritual?
Akin to this is the practice of obtaining testimonials from tlie great men at Washington to the truth and value of "our holy religion." It is not long since a tract was published Ientirely made up of such matters. Wc had the opinion of Cass, and Everett, and Douglass—although of this we are not quite certain—and Seward, and Sumner, and Clayton, and Benton, if we arc not mistaken, that the Bible was true, that Christianity was a most useful institution, and the "foundation of our liberties." Now we would not say a word Against all or any of the very respectable and distinguished gentlemen whose names have been mentioned. But then, again, the questions will come up, What is the real value of such testimony? Toward which side—the supremacy of the Church or the world—is the real tendency of the proceeding by which it is obtained? It is gathered for the sake of the young, to strengthen them in their faith. But does it not really argue distrust? Can there be true confidence in a note which has to be strengthened by so many and such endorsements? With all respect for the persons named, their testimony is not to be compared, for real value, with other that can be obtained from some of the obscurest walks of life. What is this to that witness of the power of Christianity which a man may find. if he seeks fur it, in the humblest Christian who ever taught in a Sabbath-school, or told his experience in a Methodist class-meeting? Do our young men want testimonies , Let them read the history and martyrology of the Church. We say again, we would not disparage these names— but "what is the chaff to the wheat?" What arc all these, and ten thousand more like them, to one life like that of Paul, or Augustin, or Luther, or Fenelon, or Ken* or Wesley, or Edwards? Ay, but these were professed theologians; we want something which shall operate more powerfully on the young heart, because coming from men in the secular ways of life, and who are therefore the more impartial witnesses. It comes then to this—and this is the sophism which such teaching would put at the commencement of a religious course—the casual endorsement of a worldly politician, even granting it all supposable purity of motive, is worth more, because more disinterested, than that of one who has given his whole life, and perhaps a martyr death, to the truth which he professes.
Christianity, we may well believe, had suffered some deterioration m the days of Constantine. There was more of the worldly in the Church than in some of the preceding centuries. But what would we think, should we read m authentic Church history that the pious people and clergy of those days were in the habit of seeking testimonials to the truth and utility of their religion from Roman Senators, or Roman Praetors, or Roman Generals? In view of such modern practices, we find an argument for the truth of revelation a thousand times stronger than was ever gathered in the purlieus of the Capitol. Christianity must be indeed divine when it still maintains its hold upon the human soul under circumstances so caleulated to shake all faith. It has fought many a hard battle with its malignant foes, but one of the highest proofs of its heavenly origin is found in the fact that it can stand such treatment from the hands of its professed friends. The deadliest attack of the infidel is not so faith-destroying as these attempts to prop up our beliekby the endorsement of the politician, or the patronizing certificate of the minimifidian man of science, neither of whom, it may very possibly be, knows as much of the Scriptures and Christianity as the once dark savage who sits clothed and in his right mind at the feet of the missionary of the cross.
One great cause which has contributed to give the clergy the false rearward position of which we have been speaking, is the wrong opinion entertained of the nature, and hence of the true rank, of their office—an opmion to which they themselves, or many of them, at least, have greatly contributed. We refer to that very common view which regards them as merely moral lecturers instead of men clothed with a divine commission, and charged with the delivery of a divine message. The difference between the two ideas is immense; and immense, too, must be the difference in the practical consequences. Especially is it worthy,of note, that the lower opinion should prevail in an age distmguished above all others by its cant about "missions." The editor has his mission, the schoolmaster has his mission, the author, the poet, the novelist, even the actor and the actress, each have their mission; but the clergyman, forsooth, is getting to 1la more and more thought of, and spoken of, as a voluntary, self-sent lecturer on morals. Now we know well enough that the language, as commonly used, is nothing but cant and bubble. Still there is something significant in the fact that its general prevalence should be accompanied with such a denial of the truest and highest missionindeed we may say the only real mission on our earth—or that apparent recognition of it which nullifies by putting it simply on a par with every other calling, trade, or profession in human life.
The clergy, we say, have contributed to this. They have thought to conciliate the world, and thus gain power with the world, by lowering their claims, or rather the claims of their office. They would fain be more rational men, more practical, more tensible, and hence more useful men, than their pious but mistaken predecessors. Hence the "call to the ministry," about which there used to be so much superstitious sacredness, has come to be explained as a rational conviction of fitness for doing p1od to the world by teaching the truths of Christianity. All else is undervalued, if not wholly rejected; the outward call is but priestly formality, the inward little better than a false and irrational
enthusiasm. It is the same feeling which has led to that most false position that the moral power of the clergy would be increased, the more they mingled in the world, and took part in all secular movements, i
Many who are tending to these views, would still retain, in some sense, the idea of a special mission. Others have arrived at so transcendent a rationalism that they can afford utterly to discard the thought. All men arc inspired, all days are alike religious, all life is faith, all acts are worship, all emotion is prayer, all truth is holy—science is Christianity, all conceivable measures of social reform arc Christianity, political economy is Christianity—the man who lectures on trade, or astronomy, or the " moral significance of the Crystal Palace," is preaching the Gospel as truly as ever Paul preached it at Cormth, or Xavier in the Indies, or Whitfield among the colliers of England. And yet some of these men have no hesitation in suffering themselves to be styled Reverend, after having, as far as they could, destroyed all reverence ; just as they have no moral scruple in calling themselves, and suffering others to call them, "ministers of Christ," while sitting in judgment on their master, and talking of " the mistakes of Jesus."
Such is the natural result of this view of the clerical office. If the clergyman is a moral lecturer, his truths, his doctrines, are his own as much as those of any other lecturer. He may make progress in them; he may adapt them to the age; he may claim the merit of new discoveries; ho may get up a new gospel, such as the founders of Christianity would doubtless have preached, had they possessed his light. His hearers, too, may hear by J.he same rule. The preacher is to them no divine embassador; his message is no divine message, to be received with solemn deference for Him who sent it. The lecturer himself has taught them to discard every such thought, and hence its moral power, if it have anymoral power at all, must suffer a corresponding debasement. We may be very much interested in the rhetoric of Mr. Gilfillan, his stilted exaggerations, his wondrous talent of turning all science into gospel, or all gospel into science; but then it is only the rhetoric of Mr. Gilfillan after all. It has no other moral power than his genius, whatever we may think of it, or his personal merit, whatever that may be, may impart to it. We may be quite certain that he, and Mr. Cummings, and Mr. Maurice will never do the work of John Knox, or Andrew Melville, or Richard Baxter. Mr. Parker— we mean no disrespect in naming him after such evangelical clergymen—may delight us with his extremely liberal sentimentalisms, or make us angry with his fierce and intolerant invectives, but it is Mr. Parker's inspiration after all—nothing more nor less. It is the moral power of a man, not sent, but coming in his own name, and whose doctrine is his own—a man of some striking traits of character, but many imperfections—a man very much like ourselves—a man who possibly may deceive himself, as other men have often done, with a show of zeal for philanthropy, which is, after all, but an acrimonious spirit of party, or a malignant spirit of opinion often more bigoted than party feeling, and more intolerant than any fanaticism that ever mistakingly assumed the name of a message from Heaven. What is worse, we can not know at all how long the new gospel will last, or when the new light shall come which will make it all comparative darkness. Indeed, we may be certain it will soon pass away. The speculations that many regard as standing highest in philosophy, and newest in theologyt