no room for cynical observations by an Englishman-as from a holier than thou' feeling-upon the Basilians. I do not make the comparison between England and the land of the Schwyz; but I call to mind the early history of the Reformation among the mountains of Schwyzerland, and deeply regret, either the decline of primitive religion, or the lax principles which were then too generally avowed even by the chief and more active reformers in that once favoured land. I do not forget they abjured the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath, and the morality of the entire observance. But they had only recently come out of Egypt, and while they repudiated restraint and bondage, they served from love and enjoyment."-(pp. 386, 387.)

We need not say that Professor Vinet is a great favourite and authority with Dr. M. He met with him at Lausanne.

"To so profound a Christian philosopher," he says, "and so eloquent a champion of religious liberty, and ecclesiastical reform, and emancipation, I felt constrained to shew gratitude and respect. I therefore visited Professor Vinet at his own house, where he was so kind as to afford me a most gratifying interview. He was, as I understood, not a pastor of any parish, or, by ecclesiastical functions, subject to the tribunes or government of the established church of the canton. So far, therefore, as he had proceeded, there appeared no inconsistency in his taking the collegiate provision of his state in consideration for the civil services he rendered through his office in the academy. However, I imagine, if what I have understood since my visit has occurred be correct, his views have changed as to the propriety, or some incompatibility has appeared to the ruling authorities, of an avowed argumentative and philosophical voluntary holding a professor's chair, and teaching theological principles in a state-endowed institution. I have been informed that M. Vinet has from such considerations resigned his chair and office as a professor, but acts as commissioner to remodel the constitution.... While in connection with (the) established, he occasionally preached in the parish, churches; and I have in my possession several minor publications, copies of which he presented to me, in which he combats the principles involved in a Church Establishment, and shows them to be neither scriptural nor philosophical; conducive neither to religion nor to civil liberty.... I had been one of the company who took what may have been deemed a rather adventurous and prominent part in the advocacy of kindred principles and arguments in the Anti-State-Church Conference only three months before; and the Professor was as anxious to know, as I was willing to explain to him, our relative position, and the prospects and duties of advocates of our great cause at such a time. I had with me, and afterwards lent him, the first authorized publication of that Conference, and urged him to set us right before his countrymen, who had been misguided and made to misapprehend our position, by the distortions or inventions of the Record newspaper, both as to the object and principle of our confederacy. I did what I could, but not so much or so well as I should have desired, and as such a cause deserved at such a crisis.... I would cheerfully rehearse whatever passed on so interesting a subject, and I feel assured that M. Vinet would welcome the opportunity of being faithfully reported to his fellow-men. But I may state, that as nothing more passed in our interview than what was confirmatory of his opinions already published, I shall most safely and truthfully represent him by giving an extract from his work-(Essay on the Profession of Personal Religious Conviction, and upon the separation of Church and State, considered with reference to the fulfilment of that Duty.) Having proved that every human being ought to possess religious convictions, which I wish every nominal Voluntary would remember; and that he is under a divine obligation to avow these convictions, he demonstrates that, for the civil magistrate, or civil society acting by the magistrate, to interfere with religion, is to in1846. 4 Q

terfere with the duty divinely imposed on the individual, and is, therefore, to oppose human law to the law of God. Whatever be the form in which a religious establishment can be conceived to exist, and in all past experience of such human institutions, M. Vinet evinces its opposition to the will of God. He examines and disposes of every conceivable objection, and leaves his demonstration irresistible by argument on the principle of truth.”— (pp. 422-425.)

Such is Dr. M.'s opinion of M. Vinet and his Work. He believes that, practically and by principle, he is as thorough a Dissenter as himself. To be consistent with his premises and arguments, he would also expect him to be a Congregationalist." But we must not pursue this subject. The work of M. Vinet has been reviewed in our columns, and therefore we need not here do more than reiterate our entire dissent from the theory of which he, and Dr. M. among his English admirers, are such zealous advocates. We must confess that it would have been more gratifying to us to find so prominent a member of the Evangelical Alliance as Dr. M. a little less enamoured of the theory in question, and somewhat more moderate in adjudicating between the Record and the Patriot. It will indeed be difficult, with such elements of strife, to preserve the unity of the Spirit, and avoid the offences which so many anticipate. It is not surprising that gentle spirits stand aloof, or that prudent men should fear to commit themselves. We are persuaded, however, that the animus of the Alliance, as publicly professed, is but a faint expression of the intense desire which is cherished by thousands in this country, to see all sincere believers united on a broad and common basis. But this by the way. A very few additional words must close our notice of Switzerland.

Having, in connection with Geneva, glanced at the case of Servetus, Dr. M. adds:

"The transition of opinion has been complete, but the authorities are, so far as they have been the election of popular suffrage, the representatives of intolerance still-only Trinitarians are now the victims in their turn. The syndics are Unitarian, the venerable company, the Consistory, are all leagued to propagate Socinianism, and to suppress by persecution the creed of Calvin. The revenues of the Church, or rather of the republic for the Church, which Calvin organized, are now administered for the propagation of Socinian dogmas, and the suppression of the principles which Calvin inculcated; while denunciation and deposition follow those who adhere to Calvin.”— (p. 438.)

In other words, both Church and State have been unfaithful to their trust, and we see the fruit: but we are not therefore to declare them irresponsible, or to affirm that a nation professing Christianity is to be without a creed or an order of religious worship. Dr. M.'s own Presbyterian fathers of the Kirk of Scotland thought otherwise, and we think there are reasons not a few to make us

thankful that we have still, both in his country and ours-let us add too, in the sister island-the Established profession of a true faith, with the just latitude, in regard to individual conscience and the claims of necessity, which liberty and religion alike demand.

We must, however, just add Dr. M.'s conclusion on this subject. "There is no moral," he observes, "which our recollections of Geneva will more emphatically impart, or which the progressive history of that republic will more clearly develop, than the utter incompatibility and impropriety of one man attempting to judge for his neighbour, or to overrule the opinion and freedom and conscience of his fellow-men in reference to religion. In the liberty of the people of Geneva, and in the general prevalence of civil freedom of the inhabitants of Schwyzerland, it is manifest there may be political liberty where there is no religious freedom. Political liberty and heroic achievement, connected with social liberty, may be exhibited and maintained, whilst the cause of political and enlightened Christianity does not prosper; and the noblest enjoyments of intelligent beings, in a moral and spiritual sense, are not promoted.”—(p. 467.)

Might not Dr. M. have paused to draw a favourable contrast between Schwyzerland and England? We do not recollect that he has a word for his country in the course of his 548 pages, or so much as a single reference to her incomparable and glorious con

stitution.

The last chapter of the "Recollections" is on " Luther's Fatherland-the Reformation-its instrumentality-its progress-its memorials-its influence in Germany." The chapter is chiefly historical a life in fact of Luther, which thus concludes :

"In the year 1483 he was born, and he died in 1546, an old man from labour rather than from years; yet gathered to his grave, aged 63 years, and full of honour, rich in faith, and expecting a long reward of grace and glory. He had done the work of many men, and God preserved him immortal till his task was completed, and he was prepared to receive his Saviour's welcome. He finished his toil by God's blessing: yet the greatest and wisest man's work is imperfect; and it is an interesting question which is excited by the fact that Luther's reformation needs reform. What was the secret of his deficiency, or what the source of its weakness? Have his principles been applied, and his objects consistently pursued by his followers? Christianity itself needs no reformation: the Bible, which is the type of Christianity, suffers no change-the permanent matrix of every Divine form of truth. The doctrines of that book remain to-day what they were when first promulgated, or anew proclaimed by Luther. Let men of all ages and of all climes take that book as their only guide, and they will always have the pure Christianity of its early-its earliest age.

"Why then, it may be inquired, does Martin Luther's Reformation require reform? That its present aspect and spirit betoken feebleness and formality, that its vital energies are dorinant, if inherent, and that there is more of the name to live-than of the power to influence or the resources to invigorate, will not be denied by those who have explored the land of the Reformation. Martin Luther's genius no longer inspires the religious forms of Germany; his doctrines of faith, his labours of love, his fervours of devotion, his spirit of zeal, his patience of hope, animate but few who fill the pulpits he once preached in, and who minister to the people whom he so fondly loved. The

Lutheran Church in Germany is not now Martin Luther's Church. The men who practise the rites, the clergy who minister at the altars, the professors who stand forth as the teachers of religious truth in Germany, their own flocks being judges, do not propagate Martin Luther's doctrine. A change has come over their spirits and their sentiments. A reason for this might be found, and it would afford me pleasure to trace it, and show the operation of what is evil, and the remedy which the case requires. Space interdicts at present any such attempt. I cannot, however, resist the temptation, at this moment, to specify one cause which has been assigned, as operating among the literati in Germany, to produce Rationalism, and to cause declension from the Scriptural orthodoxy and piety of Luther. The intellectual and moral condition of Germany has been described as suffering from a plethora: the reapers outnumber the sheaves to be gathered. Germany has been overstocked with students. The number of highly-educated scholars is very large in proportion to the population, in the states of Germany-much larger than the intellectual wants of the country demand! The Government, having in its hands nearly all the places of trust and emolument, looks, of course, to the abler and more promising candidates for public favour. This awakens among the thousands annually emerging from the university life a spirit of rivalry, and a strong desire for notoriety. Attention must be aroused-a name must be created at all events: if the promulgation of correct opinions will not effect the object, paradoxes may.' This is from America!"-(pp. 522, 523.)

We have the following notice of Halle-its University, and Franke's Institut.

"The University of Halle is one of the largest in Germany, but is dependent on royal bounty, and subject to ministerial inspection and control. A thousand to twelve hundred is said to be the present average number of students under the tuition of seventy-four professors. The sum granted by the government is nearly £2000 per annum, which is almost wholly expended on literature, and the physical sciences: while the proportion of students attending it is two for evangelical theology to one for other branches. The reputation of this university is based upon the character of its professors. Rationalism for a time prevailed, but it was gilded by the oriental splendours of Gesenius. Its glories have waned under the purer light, and the more hallowing lustre of evangelical truth, as shed abroad by the learning and piety of Tholuck, whose sweet and benign ascendancy has been strengthened by the more fervid, and scriptural, and equally philosophic and eloquent learning of Müller. When Tholuck delivered his inaugural lecture, he was despised by the learned, hissed by the noviciates: his piety and child-like simplicity awed the one and quelled the other. He has now the largest class in the university, and the most extended reputation among his colleagues.”-(pp. 541, 542.)

"There is in Halle an institution there called the Wisenhaus, or Franke's Institut, so designated from its object as an asylum for orphans, and from the name of its founder, Professor Franké. I had long felt an interest and desire to examine and ascertain its principles and operations, more especially as I had somehow identified it with several eminent servants of Christ, as missionaries. One the sons of my widowed friend went with me. It was on a Sunday, and in a fruitless search we passed from court to court, and from one gallery to another, in quest of the assembly for worship or instruction; the whole previous time had been spent, and what remained was to be spent, without any public act of Christian worship. My inquiries concerning the number of pupils, of schools, and of various classes in the schools, obtained more positive information. I found there were between two and three thousand youths connected with the institution, but not all orphans.....

"When Franké originated this establishment, Halle was in a state of great religious activity,-what would be called a revival prevailed: devout and fervid piety characterized the people as well as their teachers. Professor Tholuck assured me that Franké had often prayer-meetings in almost every street of the town, and enjoyed the warmest affections of the people of his pastorate; and that the community generally were zealously affected for evangelical truth, and excited to a concern for religion above any subsequent experience. Striking contrast to the scene I witnessed!-when these thousands of children had, so far as I could learn, no religious exercises whatever in their own chapel or in a sabbath-school, or yet by prescribed attendance at any place of worship beyond the bounds of their institution, while regularly only once a fortnight is their attendance required at public worship. The inspector-a government appointment, having power to direct, control, remove, and dismiss-is, I was informed, the most distinguished and zealous neologian, a rationalist sceptic and antagonist to the inspiration of Scripture, in that part of Prussia. It is under his direction the preaching and religious teaching of these orphans and scholars are placed. So much for government control. No doubt his object is to bring the children under the influence of his own religious peculiarities. What the seed sown by such a husbandman may produce can be imagined....

"A fine majestic statue of Franké, the founder, in bronze, by Rauch, to which king and people contributed, has been erected in front of the Waisenhaus. How much better a monument would be a man of like spirit with Franké in charge of the Institut! His labours prospered by voluntary liberality-what is the fruit of state bounty?"—(pp. 541–545.)

In our opinion this is no logic. Dr. M. would "like to see some such institution founded in Manchester, in connexion with a university of the highest reputation, which would supply the sons of wealthy persons, without the necessity of removing them to Oxford or Cambridge." "How much better," he observes, "thus to make provision, than by unequal and odious taxation, and the infringement of liberty in teaching or of conscience, by overbearing or exacting rulers and legislators, to force knowledge and propagate opinion!" Thus true is Dr. M. to his ruling idea: thus zealous in giving it a practical phase. We only wish that the voluntary principle, taking a right direction, left no other task for Government but to protect and cherish it. Dr. M. can hardly complain that in this country it is checked. Free scope and no favour appears to us just now to be the government maxim-or if favour there be, we all know who are the gainers. But in fact, governors and subjects need alike to have their attention roused to the one thing needful. The claims of truth-the truth of God-are imperative, and till all conspire to do it honour, and become sensible that this alone is "the sovereign good of human nature," the wellspring of health to states and individuals, we shall in vain look for the measure of national prosperity we desire. In our opinion the view of Dr. Dwight is the true one-" The legislature has not only a right, but is obliged by an authority which it can neither oppose nor question, to pursue every lawful and expedient measure