admission a little longer under the advice and superintendence of their pastors, from which not only no harm would arise, but the great good of proving their appetite for study before they entered a seminary: secondly, from distinguishing the scientific and practical portions of the course a little more decidedly than at present. The time of study is, we think, long enough:-nay, five years instead of six would, perhaps, be sufficient, if the students entered a little better prepared. Then let three years be devoted to the theoretical, two to the practical branch of theological study. But this, we think, might most advantageously be effected in separate establishments, that for the scientific branch being located in the neighbourhood of a university, such, for instance, as the London University. Of course, we do not know what the trusts of our academical institutions will allow; nor, if we did, are we so foolish as to suppose that they would be managed according to the suggestions of our fancy. But, ifusing their names for the purpose of analogical reasoning, and to give distinctness to the communication of our ideas, Coward College, for instance, were to be so enlarged as to contain a sufficient number of students for their three years' theoretical course, in connection with which they might enjoy the lectures at the university, those at Homerton and Highbury would form most admirable locations for the practical seminaries, standing in precisely the same relation to the University and Coward College, as the theological seminary at Wittemberg does to the University of Halle. According to this arrangement, all necessary philosophical and philological studies would be pursued in connection with the university lectures, but under the superintendence of a tutor in the house; while, as regarded those of a theological character, the first year of the triennium would be very advantageously devoted to exegetical pursuits, including the languages and literature of the Bible specially considered, (that is, the Greek of the New Testament as it deviates from the classic dialects,) Bible antiquities, and the elements of hermeneutics; the second year, to the same carried on in connection with courses on church history and the history of doctrines'; the third, to the first mentioned studies, and a doctrinal and ethical course in systematic order. These courses might be in a measure intermingled for the sake of relief; but in each annual session one should predominate. As the session of the theological college would probably be longer than that of the university, advantage would be taken of this circumstance to push divinity studies with added diligence. No student should preach in the pulpit of any stated minister during this course, or be admitted to the practical of honourable proficiency. Should it be thought that the students would suffer in their religious spirit through this unbroken attention to theoretical studies, this

A

seminary without t

might be counteracted by the appointment of a functionary with duties similar to those allotted by Mr. Fliedner to the university pastor. In the practical seminary, the duties of the student would be sufficiently obvious. He would here attend courses on liturgics, all that relates to the worship of the church; catechetics, homiletics, and book knowledge, or all that relates to the duty of public instruction; and the pastoral care, or the duties in relation to discipline, the visiting of the flock, and church government. In the first year, a greater proportion of the time would naturally be given to the understanding of these duties; in the second, to exercise in them, by catechising, preaching, expounding, and similar engagements. On leaving the practical seminary, testimonials should be given in proportion to desert; and, in both, yearly or half-yearly examinations should take place in public. The two seminaries should be considered as forming branches of one institution, that the students might regularly pass from one to the other; while the passing of the student through both would be secured by churches requiring in their ministers testimonials from both, and by all application for supplies being made to the practical seminary. So much for one imagined form of improvement, in a matter where improvement of some kind will soon be universally required.-Si quid novisti rectius istis, candidus imperti.

In the notice we have now concluded of Mr. Fliedner's Work, we trust that sufficient evidence has been afforded of its valuable character, and that our readers will justify us in devoting so much space to the subject. Had the Work been accessible to the English reader, we should have spared ourselves the pains of traversing again and again two volumes containing more than 1000 pages, arranging and translating passages that appeared interesting and instructive. Our work would have been much more easily done, had it been sufficient to refer the reader to the book itself. As it is, we have left almost untouched the valuable critique on Dutch divinity, from which the only passage which we have extracted, is the notice of Professor Van der Palm. In conclusion, we can only reiterate our wish, that the volumes on England had been published at the same time, and that a survey of the theological literature of England were furnished by as competent a hand.

Art. V. 1. The History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, comprising the Civil History of the Province of Ulster, from the Accession of James the First: with a Preliminary Sketch of the Progress of the Reformed Religion in Ireland during the Sixteenth Century, and an Appendix, consisting of original Papers. By

James Seaton Reid, D.D., Minister of the Presbyterian Church, Carrickfergus. Vol. I. 8vo, pp. xvi. 456. Edinburgh, 1834.

2. The Use and Abuse of Creeds and Confessions of Faith, with Strictures on the Westminster Confession; being the Substance of a Speech intended to be delivered at an Adjourned Meeting of the General Synod of Ulster, held at Cookstown, in August, 1836. By the Rev. James Carlile, Minister of the Scots Church, Capel Street, Dublin. 8vo, pp. 102. Dublin, 1836.

THE

very

different fortune which has attended Presbyterianism, in its struggle with Prelacy, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, is very remarkable; and the causes of so different a result are well deserving of historical investigation. In Scotland, it has succeeded in establishing its political ascendancy; in England, its temporary triumph has been followed by depression and decay, so that English Presbyterianism is now reduced to an inconsiderable section of the Dissenting Body of Protestants; while, in Ireland, it occupies an intermediate position, not absolutely ascendant, yet endowed by the State, and having full scope for the exertion of all its moral energies. We could not, then, have a fairer opportunity of judging of any ecclesiastical system, than is afforded by the threefold aspect of Presbyterianism under these different political predicaments. One general conclusion which it seems to us to warrant, is this; that Presbyterianism is incapable of maintaining its ground, except in alliance with the State. Being in itself a scheme of human polity, springing out of the necessities of the times in which it originated, though admirably suited to the exigencies of that period, it possesses neither the authority of a Divine institution, nor the strength of political power, nor the elasticity of institu tions resting upon the support of the people. Presbyterianism partakes of the essential defectiveness of the incipient Reformation of the sixteenth century, imbodying those erroneous principles which were adopted by the founders of most of the Protestant Churches, and which soon proved as fatal to the progress and advance of the truth, as to the internal peace of the churches themselves. At that period, the rights of the people were as ill understood by one party as by the other. The Reformation was an insurrection against spiritual despotism, almost exclusively in defence of the rights of the clergy. The people took part in it as the cause of the spiritual leaders to which they attached themselves; as the cause of ecclesiastical independence, rather than of civil freedom; and national attachments and jealousies came in aid of the struggle. The Presbyterian polity is essentially theocratic; and in times when the infant spirit of municipal freedom was too weak to wrestle with either imperial tyranny or sacerdotal domination, it was a fortunate error which enlisted on

the side of resistance, if not of liberty, the pretensions of the Church to a mixed power which trenches alike upon the prerogatives of civil magistracy and upon the rights of conscience.

Presbyterianism, at once theocratic and republican in its character, is the natural antagonist of Prelacy, which is the aristocratical principle of the feudal system, grafted upon the Church. It is the old contest of the Guelf against the Ghibelline in another form. Even the Papal Church has been found lending its aid to the maintenance of popular rights against the encroachments of secular power, and thus indirectly favouring the cause of liberty; while Prelacy, in alliance with political power, has alternately been the engine of spiritual despotism, and a barrier against sacerdotal fanaticism. Presbyterianism would seek to make the magistrate the minister of the Church: Prelacy makes the Church the minister of the Crown. Both invoke, as the ultimate sanction of church government, the power of the sword. Each has in its turn had the sword turned against itself. But, while religious liberty is in almost equal danger from prelate and presbytery, when armed with political power, there can be no question that the spiritual interests of men have suffered most from the ascendancy of the more secular system. The intolerance of Presbyterianism is theological, and is directed against heretical pravity. The intolerance of Episcopalianism is political, and winks at error, but would exterminate Dissent. Separate Prelacy from State influence, and you leave nothing but venerable formalities and an empty title. Deprive Presbyterianism of political power, and its moral influence will survive, till the free spirit of piety, which disdains the fetters of creeds, and covenants, and church courts, transmigrates into other forms, and the people resume their primitive rights as "free from all men," in matters of religious faith, but "under the law to Christ."

The history of the first plantation of the Scottish Presbyterianism in Ulster, of its struggle with Prelacy in the days of the execrable Laud and his co-tyrant Wentworth, of the subsequent conflict between the Popish and Protestant, or rather the Irish and English interests in the North of Ireland, and of the eventual compromise between Prelacy and Presbyterianism in Ulster, forms a most instructive section of our domestic ecclesiastical annals; and Dr. Reid deserves our best thanks for his laborious attempt to rescue it from obscurity and undeserved neglect. The work is, in a literary point of view, highly respectable. In the prosecution of his inquiries, neither labour nor expense has been spared, while every accessible source of information has been carefully explored in search of materials.' The Author avows himself a conscientious Presbyterian,' and he has not concealed 'his opinions; but no reader, we think, will have just cause to

6

impute either unfairness or undue partiality to his statements. He has, he says,

'exposed corruption and error, and reprobated intolerance and persecution, with unreserved freedom, wherever they were displayed; but, assuredly, with no hostile feelings towards the adherents of the churches whose conduct may have been censured, and certainly under no political prejudice against any one class of my countrymen, nor with the remotest intention of implicating the present generation, either of Romanists or Protestants, in the guilt of former transactions.'

p. vi..

In selecting a specimen of the competent ability of the Historian, we cannot give a better illustration of the manner in which he has fulfilled these professions, and kept clear of the exaggerations of party spirit, than by extracting the beginning of Chapter VII., containing an account of the origin of the Rebellion of 1641. In the Preliminary Sketch, the Author has traced the slow and limited progress of the Reformation in Ireland to two principal causes, the condition of the kingdom, which was peculiarly unfavourable to the spread of the Truth, and, the inadequacy of the measures employed for its propagation. In other countries, he remarks, the aristocracy, acting in concert with the supreme power of the State, as in England, and sometimes even in opposition to that power, as in Scotland, effectually secured the admission of truth to the minds of their vassals. But in Ireland, the English Government had not only rendered itself odious by repressing the authority of the feudal nobility, but had deprived itself of the power of acting with effect, by their instrumentality, on the minds and habits of the people. The authority and influence peculiar to an hereditary nobility were thus transferred to the priesthood, who became the effective aristocracy of the country, and were thereby invested with additional facilities for opposing the progress of the Truth. On the other hand, neither ordinary discretion nor reasonable activity was discovered in introducing the violent change in the religion of the country. The agents exclusively employed were the natives of a kingdom against which the Irish were deeply and justly incensed.'

By this means, the reformed religion became unhappily identified with England, and the most violent prejudices were unnecessarily excited against it in the minds of the people. Had native converts from Popery been advanced to the dignities and offices which were conferred exclusively upon Englishmen, had they been sent forth among their countrymen and their friends, to whom they would have had the happiest facilities of access, and with whom they would have enjoyed the auspicious opportunity of reasoning in a spirit of affection and impartiality, a greater measure of success might justly have been expected to result. But perhaps a still more fatal error was that of