perpetual divisions tend. In the National Church there exists a certain faith, and at the least great liberty. The great majority of ministers have broken the yoke of the formulas. They preach the gospel, as they understand it, according to their undoubted right, according to the true Protestant principle. The result is, that all shades of Christian orthodoxy are represented at this time in the Protestant pulpit. Their flocks, their councils, enjoy the same liberty as the pastors. Each one remains attached to the opinions which the gospel has impressed upon his mind and heart. In the churches served by a single pastor, the preaching is distinguished, and ought to be distinguished, by a tone of moderation which allows each faithful mind to obtain edification there according to his religious point of view. We know that this happy result is not universal throughout the churches having one pastor, and that is to be regretted; but we know that our observation applies to a considerable part even of these communities. In the churches which have several pastors, which comprehend the most populous and influential, those of our large towns, the situation is still more clear and favourable. There, resting on Christian and Protestant liberty, influenced by the degree of intelligence, the kind of education, or the varied impulses of the heart, it happens in general that the pastors, one or other, adopt dogmatic systems, differing in form, but founded essentially on the gospel, and which represent in fact the shades of conviction existing at this time among Christians. Thence, each disciple can follow as he chooses the worship and the sermons which reflect most exactly his own point of view. This fact exists in almost all our large towns, and examples, if required, would present themselves to every mind. The conclusion at which we arrive, then, is this: in such a state of things, what sense is there in theological antipathies, and what is the use of separating and forming particular sects? Such is the question which we place before our readers. If there existed in the Protestant Church of France a decreed and obligatory confession of faith, like that of old, whether this confession were purely Calvinistic or Arminian or Baptist or Unitarian, it would signify little; it would be necessary then to separate. It would be necessary to institute sects; it would be very necessary to

re-vindicate the rights of gospel liberty; it would be quite necessary to institute dissenting worship and separate societies. They would be a right and a duty. But in the present state of things, it is clear that they are nothing but a disorder and an obstacle to the union of Christians.

This reflection leads us to enter a little more particularly into the positions of the day. For some time past, our exclusive party has adopted with eagerness, to speak with the utmost moderation, the scheme of religious liberty and of individual and separate churches. It has even made the tribune of the Chamber of Deputies resound with its proselyting enterprizes; it has shewn, as we think, in this affair, unheard-of imprudence, of which Protestants in general will have to suffer the consequence. But what can be the need of these separations and these distinct societies? Protestant services before the inhabitants, even the ancient Catholics, who invited them legitimately, have never been seriously called in question by the authorities, administrative or judicial. The consistorial worship would always have finished by obtaining ample protection. The arbitrary caprice of an ignorant Mayor, uneasy at the appearance of a sect, would always have yielded finally to the intervention of superior power, acting with calmness and justice. There was then no necessity for establishing sects out of the national Reformed Church. Even in the Protestant Church, where the question may be to satisfy the various theological tendencies of the people, it appears that in all our important towns the old theology, as well as the new, has its preachers; there is then no longer any necessity to institute new sects there. There seems to be no plausible pretext for it, neither for the new Catholic proselytes, nor for the Protestant Dissenters, lingering disciples of the ancient theology of the 16th century. On both sides, the reason for separation is only found in the passion for separation itself. This is the view of our conduct which we find deplorable.

What has happened in the church of most of our large towns amply confirms our theory. We cannot enter into these details, but every one knows that by the side of the National Church, which had not life, and beyond its walls, a sectarian spirit has established dissenting chapels with distinct minis

ters and sacraments, which have become really zealous and flourishing communities. The orthodoxy preached there is undoubtedly very earnest and pure. They were and are still much frequented by the faithful of that opinion; but during this time, they preached also in the National Church, at least many of its pastors, that same identical orthodoxy, the favoured and governing worship of the chapels. Do you believe that these disciples, so hard to please and so zealous, would come into the National Church to hear their dogma preached? Not the least in the world. They remained at home. The place, the temple, the service, displeased them. In vain was their dogma preached in the National Church with strength and fervour; their dogma was preached in the desert, to the great scandal and sorrow of every good Pro testant, who, far from sectarian follies, never yielded to the idea of seeing one of the temples empty in the midst of a great Catholic country. We agree that matters are a little softened with respect to this, but they have been manifest enough to enable us to draw from it a striking argument for the opinion which we here defend.

One may hence gather what in sects and religious unions are the aims of the party which carries its restless and violent spirit even to the tribunes of the Chambers. Facts shew even to demonstration that it separates itself from the National Church only for the purpose of separation. It would find there, if it chose, protection and orthodoxy. But one would think that it does not desire these things when they appear with the forms of peace and good order and Christian fraternity. There is here, clearly, a human and personal influence and impulse. As we are daily treated as no Christians and adversaries of the Christian faith, we shall say also that we think we perceive much human pride among our fiery sectarian leaders. Still galled by the yoke of Rome, from which our fathers with so much heroism delivered us, must we take again that of the little popes, who separate from their mother Church only to be chiefs and to reign as masters? All things considered, the little servitude would be more galling than the greater. It is the liberty of the gospel of Christ which we wish to establish, and it no more exists in their conventicles than peace. The position of Christian Europe renders it still more urgent that all Protestants

should rally round this holy and noble cause, which consists in planting the banner of the gospel far beyond these clouds and enmities. At the two extremities of Europe a sad spectacle is presented to our attention; the immense slave race is stagnant or plunged in the superstitions of the Greek Church; Italy is oppressed and groaning; we read in an English paper of to-dayeven (13th April), speaking of the establishment of a service for the English sailors at Cadiz, this significant expression-"there is not a single Protestant minister in all Spain." In England there exists always great activity and a fine religious agitation; but it is mixed up almost every where with a certain intolerant and narrow spirit. What shall we say of that professed union of all Christians, so much cried up at Liverpool? (the Evangelical Alliance-Transl.). It is a contemptible undertaking, since the chiefs reserve to themselves to exclude whom they will, and to pick and choose in the great Christian family. But frequently the spirit of the English becomes both clumsy and fatal when they apply themselves to the affairs of the Continent. They bring to us that disposition which guided them in the affair of the College of Maynooth. The orthodox English have obstinately contended against the poor Catholic clergy of Ireland receiving the alms of a good education. In the affair of the Chapels' Bill of one class of Dissenters, these same orthodox would have deprived their brethren of their churches, and they have wasted in law-expenses immense sums, reserved by the founders for works of charity. They were conquered by the wisdom of the Legislature. Let us hope that a similar defeat awaits a like fanaticism in France, when it dares to snatch from the young Protestant clergy the foundation of Geneva, on the pretext, quite simple in their eyes, that the learned and pious clergy of Geneva has the misfortune not to be an orthodox clergy. Let us learn also how to profit by the sad experience of the Canton de Vaud, where dogmatic and political bitterness has led the entire Protestant clergy to the deplorable resolution of abandoning its sacred charge. In Germany we have a more cheering spectacle. In spite of the orthodox tendencies of a Monarch, and in spite of the dream of subjecting the coming age of the Church to a mystical episcopacy, the German Catholics have spoken, laboured and thriven in a truly evangelical spirit.

They have not taken for a banner, dogmatism and excommunication: they have spoken only of the gospel, and success has crowned their efforts. The finest religious movement which has broken out since the great Reformation, has taken place, by the will of God, without human formulas and under the guidance of the gospel. All that orthodox believers had endeavoured to do in the country of Luther, had remained without result; but the open declarations of Ronge, and the tolerant charity of Czerski, have opened thousand and tens of thousands of souls to the light of pure Christianity. This triumph should give us confidence in our cause. It shews us that the gloom of Methodism will pass away like a dream, and in future will be unknown. In France, above all, if they obstinately follow this way, they will make indeed some little intolerant sects; they will do nothing general, profound or great. All that resembles the spirit of the Jesuits will crumble to pieces of itself, to make way for the mild and easy yoke of the gospel of Jesus Christ; and the day will come when our intolerant doctors themselves will retain only their spirit of piety, and will be converted to the law of charity, sympathy and love. (Translated from Le Lien of May 2, 1846.)

DOMESTIC.

Pulpit Privilege.

Some of our apprehensive friends have recently taken alarm at a dictum of one of the most respected of our Judges, tending, as it is supposed, to set up a sort of pulpit privilege, by virtue of which bad sermons may enjoy a protection from criticism which no other composition in verse or prose possesses. Unless our readers belong to that class who are made uncomfortable when they are deprived of a grievance, we may have their thanks for shewing that their fears are groundless. We shall pass over the facts of the case as briefly as the necessity of being understood will permit. At a trial at the late assizes for Cambridgeshire, the Rev. Mr. Gathercole obtained £200 damages against Mr. Miall, the respected Editor of the Nonconformist, for a libel, which libel consisted of animadversions, confessedly not in good taste and very severe, on a sermon preached by the plaintiff against the Dissenters, and on a charity founded by the plaintiff on a principle of excluding all but

members of the Church. On the trial, it seems that Mr. Baron Parke stopped the argument of the defendant's counsel in defence of the criticism, by an intimation that he held the sermon to be a private, not a public matter, and therefore no fit subject of criticism. This, it was contended, was a misdirection; and on that ground (there were others with which we have no concern) a new trial was moved for. The rule was refused; but at the same time the imputed doctrine laid down by the Baron as much damaged as possible by two other learned Barons, Alderson and Rolfe, who enjoy, with himself, the reputation of being among the very best Judges on the Bench. We will explain the nature of the point raised, which will interest the general reader quite as much as the professional man.

It may be taken as a general rule (without affecting minute accuracy), that whatever writing exposes a man to the imputation of being either knave or fool, and makes him an object of hatred or contempt, is a libel. But then the interests of society have required the admission of a number of exceptions to this, and have limited the subject of libel to a man's private life and concerns. Suppose a satirist to indulge his malignity by holding up to public ridicule every henpecked husband in his neighbourhood, or to amuse idle readers by setting down the harmless nonsense that he might have heard at a private dinner-table-he would be a libeller in publishing these. But the law does not protect all varieties of folly and absurdity. Dogberry, we presume, could have had no remedy if he had been set down an ass, even without his requiring it; and an actor or author must submit to the freest public animadversion. The amplest license is allowed to criticisms on public men, and such are professors of literature or fine art. This is the critics' bill of rights or magna charta, that they may set down at their will and pleasure every candidate for public favour as an ass, provided in doing this they do not impute to the writer what he did not write, and they must carefully abstain from all personalities. If this be carefully adhered to, it is not necessary that the critic should be absolutely in the right or just in his criticism. That is a matter of opinion, on which every man will hold his own. Now Mr. Baron Parke was very decided in the expression of his opinion, that an un

printed sermon delivered by a clergyman to his congregation is of the nature of a private transaction, and not therefore open to the free animadversions of all the world. And Sir Thos. Wilde, on moving for a new trial, pointed out successfully the great distinction between the domestic concerns of a man and a discourse appertaining to a whole parish, at which might be present thousands of hearers. And so far were the other judges from giving their sanction to this dictum of Mr. Baron Parke, that great care was taken, in refusing the new trial, to declare other grounds than acquiescence in it. Indeed, Baron Parke himself took care, in his charge to the jury, to remark that, after all, no such sermon was proved as had been alleged; and when Sir Thomas Wilde suggested that, on account of his interlocutory judgment, the evidence was not tendered, it was again and again asked, whether the counsel at the trial would declare that he had been thereby prevented offering the testimony. Sir Thomas contented himself with maintaining that the question ought not to be put. From this part of the report we infer, both that in fact there had been no intention to prove the sermon, (for in libel cases counsel rarely venture on calling witnesses,) and that if it had appeared that it was from the interposition of the Judge that the evidence had not been offered, the new trial would not have been refused. In the very elaborate judgment given in the Court of Exchequer, the Chief Baron is the only one who seems to have in any degree given countenance to the opinion of Baron Parke, and he seems to have been embarrassed to an unusual degree in the expression of his judgment; for he takes the distinction that a merely preached sermon might not be exposed to licentious comments, implying that such comments might be applied to another class of subjects; and also setting up a distinction between criticisms being bona fide and being actually true and just. We shall be curious to see in what way these points of ethical discrimination are given hereafter in those periodical Reports which are published for the use of the profession, and which sometimes have the benefit of a correction by the learned Judges. We should marvel much were we to read in a Term Report such a sentence as the following-it applies to the charity, but that is immaterial for the purpose of the citation: "The question is, whether a charity....con

fined to certain persons within a parish may be made the subject of a licentious comment? I own I think that every purpose of public good would be answered by strictly confining that to the privilege that every man has of publishing that which is true.... and that it is not at all necessary, in a case of this sort, to give him any power, either licentiously or with honest prejudices, to invent for himself, or to misrepresent and comment upon, matters that do not exist in point of fact, however honestly"! It ought not to be lightly credited that one of the highest dignitaries of the law would utter a jumble of words like these, according to which it would seem that an individual might even invent through honest prejudices, as well as honestly misrepresent, &c. Yet this report affects to give with verbal minuteness all the tautologies of a conversation, as well as a formal argument, including a sparring between the most pertinacious of advocates and a Judge, on this occasion remarkably anxious to defend himself-a report extending to twelve columns of the Nonconformist newspaper.

The support given to the Baron by the Chief is by no means confirmed by the puisne Judges; for Baron Alderson says, "If my brother Parke had told the jury that to observe upon the sermon of a clergyman which he preaches openly in his pulpit, was not a proper subject within the general rule which enables parties to comment more liberally" [a better word than licentiously] "on the public conduct of individuals than on their private conduct, I for one should have desired the question should be further considered.' He qualifies this only by saying he has not a decided opinion. The learned Baron afterwards observes, in a tone of humour not uncharacteristic, that a critic has no right to say of an actor that he has disgraced himself in private life, or of a judge or minister that he has committed felony. He intimates that there is no doubt you may criticize a "gentleman's sermons" by saying "he is a remarkably bad preacher," because with "respect to the stupidity or dulness of the sermon, there is no redress except by public observations." He hints at the same time a doubt whether it is lawful to charge a clergyman with preaching erroneous doctrine, because there is a tribunal to which that may be referred. In saying which the learned Baron forgot for a moment as well the Protestant right of private judg

ment as the test of public interest, within both of which, in his opinion surely, soundness of doctrine would lie. Mr. Baron Rolfe intimated his dissent from Baron Parke's dictum still more strongly, so as to extort from the Baron, when he reiterated his opinion, the usual qualification of, "with all due respect to my brother Rolfe." He said, "I wish to take this opportunity of saying, that, as at present advised, I should not have gone the length of my learned brother Parke in saying that comments on sermons would not come within the category of public acts. I rather think I should have thought they would have done so."

We have abstained from remarking on the other part of the case respecting the institution of a charity excluding the Dissenters. Mr. Baron Rolfe alone intimated his disapprobation of such an exclusion, of which the other Judges said nothing; but he considered this a private, and not a public act.

During the long desultory argument, the admitted law, universally recognized law, that the truth of a libel, however private the matter and however malignant the motive, constitutes a defence, was of course adverted to. We are glad of any opportunity to declare that this is, in our judgment, the very worst part of our libel-law,concurring therein with Lord Brougham and others, advocates for an extended liberty of the press, who would allow of a plea of truth in all cases of private libel, not as a justification, but in mitigation of damages.

To conclude: we do not think that the right of free censure of parish priests and other public preachers is seriously endangered by this decision. We sympathize with the defendant in this case, because we think the damages were outrageous. At the same time, we cannot refuse our assent to the remark of Mr. Baron Alderson "I think it would be a libel on criticism to call this criticism on any sermon." The character of the plaintiff, that of being himself a convicted libeller, his ill-merited position, his abuse of a power conferred we know not why, were all circumstances very irritating; and the temptation to vituperate might well be irresistibly strong. But we are by no means of opinion that among the rights of the press that of scolding is of the first importance. The cardinal rule to be followed by those who may have the duty imposed on them of exposing the misconduct of

others, is to abstain from the strong expression of even merited reproach, but so to state the facts (of course with careful accuracy) as that the words of reproach involuntarily arise in the mind of every reader. H. C. R.

Bishop Alexander.

The first Protestant Bishop of Jerusalem, Solomon Alexander, was born in May, 1799, in the Grand Duchy of Posen, of Jewish parents. Of his youth and education nothing is known, except that he acquired considerable knowledge of the Talmud, and that he was early promoted to the office of Rabbi. In later years he became a convert to Christianity, whose excellencies he had learnt from his own studies. He received baptism at Plymouth. His learning fitted him for a situation in the Church, which he first obtained as clergyman in Ireland, but in a short time he was engaged as a missionary to the Jews. The success which crowned his efforts in this sphere of usefulness recommended him to the clergy in the Metropolis, and through their influence he obtained the Professorship of Hebrew in King's College.

When the Chevalier Bunsen in London brought before the notice of his Sovereign a proposal for the establishment of a Protestant Bishopric in Jerusalem, under the auspices of Great Britain and Prussia, and it was determined that one should be set on foot, Dr. Alexander was created the first Protestant Bishop of that city. He set out at the end of 1841, and arrived in Beyrut on the 18th of January, 1842.

Before this, permission had been obtained from Ibrahim Pacha to establish a Protestant church in the Holy City. It appeared hence that it would not be difficult, through the united influence of England and Prussia, to obtain a firman from the Porte for that purpose. Nevertheless, such was not the case. In January, 1843, the continuance of the building was forbidden, and it required the most pressing representations of the English and Prussian ambassadors to induce the Porte to recal its prohibition.

Bishop Alexander had to gain still more bitter experience. His entry into Jerusalem had, entirely without his concurrence, been made an occasion of festivity, because the authorities believed it their duty to shew honour to the man chosen by the two great powers