tionary indifferentism. If we are prepared to persevere with the glorious work which our forefathers were privileged, under God, to commence, we must present a discreet and determined front to this insidious foe. If we believe that "each section of the Church has some section of the truth specially to minister," we must not be ashamed of our distinctive and Denominational names. We must cease to sigh for a Utopian uniformity, remembering that the "toleration of diversity" which requires uniformity of external organization is not toleration, but tyranny. It is pretty generally believed that competition is the sine qui non of a healthy commerce; and we have little doubt that competition, such as that which our Denominational system creates, is equally indispensable to the conservation of the purity of our religion. By all means let us have rivalry, provided the object sought be the greatest amount of work for Christ, and the largest number of sheaves for the skies. Such rivalry will incite to zealous work; whilst, filled with a fervent charity, we shall weep over each other's failures, and rejoice in each other's successes. Instead, therefore, of breaking down our Church-fences, let us maintain them in their integrity; only taking care to keep a wide door and a loving welcome for friendly visitors.

The change of a word at a particular point in our Lord's discourse, John x. 16, is very significant: "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one flock, and one Shepherd." The flock is one, and the Proprietor is one. But the folds are many, and the pastors are many. Hence, if we desire a Scriptural unity, we must seek it in something higher than mere external organization: we must ascend to Him who is the Head. United to each other by our common loyalty to Him, we can together climb the mount of God; and then, strong in the possession of a common baptism, we shall be prepared to descend to our special work, and, in our several spheres, to sow and tend and reap with success. When all the Churches sincerely acknowledge Christ as the Head, and each other as brethren, unity will have become a fact, and the foundations of unparalleled religious prosperity will have been surely and firmly laid. Nor do we think this consummation so distant as many suppose. The days of religious intolerance are numbered. Ecclesiastical exclusiveness is hoary with age, but in its age is ceasing to be honoured. If a little theological knowledge and a small degree of piety formerly excited rancour amongst Churches, more knowledge, and an increase of piety, are gradually and surely removing it, and drawing us closer to each other and closer to Christ. When, till the present year, was an Anglican bishop known to volunteer so Christian a sentiment as this ?— "I, for my part, have no hesitation at all in saying, that I look upon the ministers of every Denomination in this country as ministers of Christ. I know no test by which their work can be tried which will not come to that result, because I see that men under their ministry have accepted God's truth; I see that men under their teaching do live better lives; I see that men by their voices are awoke out of slumber; I see that there are those whom they have called and have brought near unto my Master; and when I see that the Lord, the Master of us all, has so blessed their work, I cannot doubt for one moment that their work has

His approval, and that He has sent them." After this, it is surely not unreasonable to indulge the hope that John Bunyan's wish concerning Mr. Bigotry, that he had broken his neck,-is nearing its fulfilment.

To conclude: let the soldiers of the Cross cease to complain of being organized into "regiments," and "brigades," and "divisions;" and instead of seeking unity in the destruction of this organization, let them seek it rather in an uncompromising hostility to the common foe, and in unswerving loyalty to the one "Captain of our Salvation."

L.

ROMISH CONVENTS, AND THEIR RELATION TO
BRITISH LAW.

THE startling disclosures of convent-life which were made in the Nisi Prius trial at Westminster before the Lord Chief Justice early in the year 1869, in connection with the case of Saurin versus Starr, awakened a deep and indignant feeling throughout the country; it was felt that something was necessary to be done to open the recesses of these so-called religious houses to the light of day, and subject them in some degree to the wholesome influence of public opinion. This feeling at length found expression in the House of Commons, in the motion by Mr. Newdegate for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the discipline and number of such institutions, the state of the law respecting them, and the terms upon which property is held by them. This motion, which was fiercely opposed by the Romish party, was latterly, at the suggestion of the Head of the Government, restricted to the state of the law as regards these institutions, and the tenure of their property. An endeavour wa made, without success, at the commencement of last session, to widen the scope of the investigation. We have the result of the Committee's labour in their report, which is now before us,-a document which is likely to give rise, ere long, to discussions of a grave character, both within and beyond the walls of Parliament. What we propose at present is, to lay before our readers as brief a vidimus as possible of the substance of the information thus presented to us.

At the Reformation, monasteries and convents in England, which had been previously recognized by law, and in most cases were empowered to hold property, were declared to be illegal, and became extinct. By the Emancipation Act of 1832, religious orders or societies of men bound by monastic vows are prohibited, under the penalty of banishment for life. It is contrary to English law to bequeath lands or personalty for the benefit of any Roman Catholic monastery. But by the Act of 1832, Roman Catholics in England are placed in the same position as English Protestant Dissenters in respect of their schools, and places for religious worship, education, and charitable purposes; and since 1860, when an Act was passed for the removal of certain disabilities, to which some Roman Catholic charities were still subject, all Roman Catholic charities in England-that is, all endowments for the benefit of bishops and priests, churches, schools, and colleges, unconnected with monasteries or convents have been, and are, governed by precisely the same law as

Protestant charities, and are equally subject to the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners in all respects.

The law of Scotland, as applying to monastic and conventual institutions, appears to vary somewhat from that of England; and the report states that no decided case has yet occurred in the Court of Session to settle the question how far endowments of monasteries or convents are legal in this part of the kingdom. This state of the law has necessarily affected the terms on which income, property, and estates are received and held by these institutions, or those belonging to them. Persons joining a regular monastic order take a vow of poverty; and this being inconsistent with the retention of property, they must divest themselves by legal means of their possessions. A portion is usually given over to the community which they join; and the operation of the law is evaded in the following manner :-The institutions, not being incorporations, cannot receive or hold any property except by trustees; and as a trust in favour of a monastic institution is illegal, and the validity of trusts in favour of convents is doubted, the universal practice is for Roman Catholics to convey all property which is meant to be enjoyed in common by these institutions, to several individuals as joint tenants, in whom the absolute ownership is vested. On the honour of these joint tenants, so far as the law is concerned, the possession of the property by the community depends; but it cannot be doubted that every security is taken from the tenants for behoof of the community which can be supplied by ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and those spiritual sanctions which have supreme power over the conscience of a Romanist. In point of fact, whatever complaints may be made of oppression in the law, it cannot be shown that, in a single instance, any grievance or wrong has been suffered by the Roman Catholic body from this mode of dealing with the property in question. Such is the substance of the report,-given, of course, in a very abbreviated form.

These restrictions, imposed by the law of this country on monastic institutions, are not to be regarded as in any respect infringements upon the religious liberty of Roman Catholics; for they enjoy freedom to worship according to their own faith, without let or hindrance; and, as has been stated, they stand on a level with their Protestant fellow-subjects as regards the protection which the law gives to charitable foundations, properly so called. The provisions already described were designed to serve as safeguards of British liberty; and they admit of an easy defence, as being directed not against conscience, but against institutions which are essentially alien to the genius of the British people, and which, as history shows, were formerly in this country nests of superstition and nurseries of vice. We must be at liberty to remember and apply the lessons of the past; and the experience of our forefathers speaks to us the warning, that like causes will lead to like results. This is, in brief, the explanation of the repressive character of the laws which we are now considering. The Reformation from Popery is a fact in British annals which must not be ignored; neither is the other fact to be "pooh-poohed," that our constitution is Protestant. Because we have acknowledged the right of Roman Catholics to the exercise of religious liberty, it does not follow that we must build up under the sanction, and place beneath the

protection, of the law, the monastic nuisance which our ancestors found it necessary to demolish with a strong hand. The mass of our people regard Romanism not simply as a religion, but as a system of priestly domination-a conspiracy against liberty, civil and religious-a scheme for the aggrandizement of the hierarchy and for crushing independent thought; and to the conviction that Popery must be watched, and kept within such limits as are compatible with the interests of the nation at large, these statutes owe their origin.

The report refrains from suggesting any practi al measures, but it reveals pretty distinct leanings towards the removal of those restrictive statutes which it describes. We may be prepared for this question being now raised; and among those members of the House of Commons who appear to be disposed to second the ambitious projects of the Romish party, the affirmative will doubtless find supporters. Now we at once admit that these repressive laws, directed against the conventual system, do not hinder its growth. Monkery is steadily advancing in Britain, in spite of these penal clauses and prohibitory enactments. Before the Emancipation Act (1832) there was not one in Britain; there are now seventy. In 1830 there were but sixteen convents; now there are two hundred and thirty-three. It is manifest that, though it be illegal to bequeath money for upholding a monastery, large sums of money are, in fact, bequeathed for this purpose, which reach their intended destination. We may have soon to face the inquiry, Is it politic to place upon the statute-book repressive laws which are suffered to remain a dead letter, and which may, in fact, produce an unwholesome reaction in favour of that which is supposed to be treated oppressively and unfairly? The report gives some indication of the plausible arguments by which the demand for their repeal was sustained in the course of the inquiry now closed. "It was urged, that respect for the law was likely to be weakened in the minds of those who received education from teachers whose very existence was in violation of a law regarded by Roman Catholics as trenching upon the rights of conscience. It was further urged, that the law against perpetuities, the law of mortmain, the law against undue influence, and the laws protecting personal liberty, none of which were objected to by the Roman Catholic witnesses, were amply sufficient to check all abuses in conventual and monastic institutions, and to prevent all improper and excessive acquisition of property by them, without having recourse to penal clauses which never had been put into operation."

One thing we hold to be clear, that if monasteries and convents are to be permitted by future changes of the law to hold their property under trusts declared in the usual way, they must be placed under a thorough and impartial system of inspection; and that, while their internal management and economy are rendered more amenable to public sentiment, the laws which govern the acquisition, possession, and administration of their property must be subjected to the ordinary tribunals.-United Presbyterian Magazine,

59

CURRENT CHURCH-QUESTIONS:

66 ECCLESIA:" SECOND SERIES.*

We can scarcely attach too much importance to the manifestos which, in the present day, are every now and then issued by various parties in different sections of the Christian Church. They are a peculiarity of our times. Many hands are employed in their production; a wide range of cognate subjects is treated; a clearer understanding of the position occupied by Church-parties in their relations to one another is obtained; and points of difference and similarity are rendered obvious. We thus see where an approximation to unity of thought is possible, and where irreconcilable divergences exist. They make us acquainted with the changes of position which time and circumstances have induced in the several sections of the religious community. Opportunity is afforded by them to the several Churches for bearing their testimony to what they conceive to be the essential or more important truths of Christianity, and which it is their particular mission to uphold. Ecclesiastical organizations, too, are discussed and defended on the ground of their Scriptural authority and adaptation to the objects of the Church of Christ and the wants of mankind. The work of this kind now before us is the Second Series issued under the auspices of leading members of the Congregational Churches. We read the former volume with considerable interest; but found numerous points of importance to which we were obliged to take exception. It is, however, with this second collection of essays that we have now to do, and we regret that time and space do not admit of our giving to the respective tractates much more than a passing notice.

The first paper, by Dr. Mellor, brings before us one of those subjects on which reconciliation between the different views entertained respecting it is impossible. Discussion must go forward, but we trust in an everincreasing Christian spirit, until the truth shall obtain its own victory. The doctrine of "Baptismal Regeneration" is so interwoven with "High-Church" ecclesiastical and priestly claims that we are not surprised it is maintained with the greatest tenacity and ingenuity. When, however, those claims are fairly sifted, and the New Testament is honestly accepted as our guide, we see not how it can be held for a moment. The Church which bases its doctrinal system on traditional modes of thought must always feel itself in difficulty, and be driven to adopt arguments which may be subtile, but at the same time are transparently false. When Scripture is appealed to by them, it is painful to see the ingenious perversions to which it is subjected. Dr. Mellor says, "There are three leading hypotheses touching the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the first teaching that its effects are wholly objective; the second teaching that they are partly objective and partly subjective, the subjective being invariably produced, though precarious as to their continuance; and the third teaching that they are partly objective and

"Ecclesia: a Second Series of Essays on Theological and Ecclesiastical Questions. By various Writers. Edited by H. R. Reynolds, D.D." London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1871.