well, and soon discovering the helmet and shield of Phalaris, his friend, both which he had lately with his own hands new polished and gilt, rage sparkled in his eyes, and leaving the pursuit after Wotton, he furiously rushed on against his new approacher.

Boyle, observing well his time, took up a lance of wondrous length and sharpness; and as this pair of friends, compacted, stood close side by side, he wheeled him to the right, and, with unusual force, darted the weapon. In went the point (through Bentley), passing through arm and side; nor stopped or spent its force till it had also pierced the valiant Wotton."

The question has been debated much since, and very fair and moderate statements of the arguments on each side of the controversy may be found in the xxxvth of the "Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres," by Hugh Blair, D.D., and in the xxxviiith of the "Lectures on Belles Lettres and Logic," by the late Professor Wm. Barron. That Archbishop Whately gained a prize for an Essay on the Arts in which the Ancients excelled the Moderns," in 1810, shows that the old faith has scarcely yet died out of Oxford. In this brief notice we have not attempted to exhaust the subject; we have merely wished to give a brief, intelligible sketch of a bygone controversy. Should any of our readers be so interested in the question as to desire to read more on the subject, we subjoin a list of the most readily available sources of information. We have already mentioned Macaulay's essay on Sir Wm. Temple. His 66 Biography of Atterbury" also contains a notice of this controversy. Monk's "Life of Bentley" sketches it fully (pp. 45— 107). Rymer's "Essay on Curious and Critical Learning; Disraeli's "Quarrels of Authors;" John Boyle, fourth Earl of Orrery's, "Remarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. Swift;" Hallam, in his "Literature of Europe;" and many other authors, supply notices, allusions, or references to this famous "Battle of the Books." We should prefer, however, enticing some of our readers to go over the original sources,-to read the exquisite phrases of English used by Sir Wm. Temple,-observe his superiority to Dr. Wotton, -peruse the slashing Bentley's able "Dissertation," and enjoy a laugh over Swift's exquisitely able morceau of critical fun: We have purposely refrained from extensive direct quotations not absolutely required by our narrative, in the hope that we should succeed in doing so. Should we not, however, we may at least indulge the hope that our brief chapter from the history of controversy has not failed in interest as a record of real life, passion, and effort. No useless and barren controversy did it prove to be, though the main point was left undetermined. It stimulated scholarship for many a year thereafter, and extinguished boy-editors of classics; it gave the impulse to that recondite studiousness, which rescued Britain from the contempt of Europe, and enabled us to boast, among others, of Porson, Elmsley, Hare, Thirlwall, Grote, Arnold, Long, Allen, Donaldson, &c. In effecting this, it has done much.

S. N.

Religion.

IS THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF CHURCH PATRONAGE JUSTIFIABLE ?

AFFIRMATIVE REFLY.

THE thoughtful and exceedingly well written article of "Sigma," in the consideration of this subject of Church patronage, is worthy of studious examination. After a résumé of what he may consider as a history of the custom, he presents several reasons in proof, in his opinion, that Church patronage is not justifiable. First, he says, "Because it is opposed to the genius of Christianity," and cites the passage, "My kingdom is not of this world"-a fact any one, having the slightest acquaintance with the history of the period in which Christ lived upon the earth, will readily admit. Christ's kingdom was not of the world-well would it have been for the world had it been; Christ desired that His kingdom should have been of the world-He came into the world for the purpose of establishing His kingdom-to set up in the hearts of all men that heaven which is, "within you' as much as it is without, in the exercise of those graces, and that belief, which He has appointed as the way to secure the realities of spiritual life. Christ wished that His king. dom should have been set up in the hearts of all rulers and governors. It was not so set up; hence we have the reason why the early Christians". never dreamed of soliciting the patronage of the civil power. Under the circumstances, it would have been most absurd to have done so. What wished that" civil power" have thought, had any such request been preferred, as that of the "appointment of bishops and deacons ?" Why, that "civil power" was opposed to the existence of the Head of the Church, set Him upon a cross, and in derision styled him "The King of the Jews." Was it to the murderers of Christ that the disciples of Christ should have appealed "in the appointment of bishops and deacons ?" Had, however, the "civil power" acknowledged the Sonship of Christbecome allied with those who acknowledged His Divinity and mediatorial work, then it, in common with the disciples of Christ, might justifiably have exercised a share in the appointing of "bishops and deacons" to hold rule over the Church. There is no objection, per se, to rulers and governors; on the contrary, the rule of rulers and governors is upheld. The things that belonged to Cæsar were

to be given to Cæsar. That which was condemned was the unjust rule of the unjust ruler. The office was not condemned. If, then, the rulers became believers of the Christian verity, they would become entitled to a voice in the nomination of those men who should hold spiritual rule in the Church. Hence we come to see that the patronage of Christian rulers is very different from the patronage of unbelievers; and hence we come to see how a man in an elevated position, exercising secular rule, may, with the utmost propriety, exercise rule in the collation of men to offices of spiritual authority.

The objection which "Sigma" makes to ecclesiastical titles is without point, unless he objects to all titles. The simple Rev., adopted by the dissenters, is open to the like objection; other wise it is a mere question of degree. What does the objector think of the titles given or assumed by the Lords temporal?

We are next told that Church patronage is not justifiable,"Because the system is vicious in its administration." By the same rule, so is every system. It was our duty, in a previous paper, to furnish examples from dissenting churches, to extend which would be a very easy task. If "Sigma," or any other contributor, can furnish the name of that denomination which possesses a perfect system, uncontaminated with any vicious influence, we shall declare to the world that which the world has long been in pursuit of a new thing under the sun. No; imperfection is the law of this world, but how the appointment of bishops would be improved by any change of the power now possessed by the Premier, we have yet to see. It is very doubtful, if every member of the Establishment had a voice in the election of a bishop, if the bishop so appointed would be more exemplary than those bishops appointed, say, under the premiership of Palmerston, who are men without an exception disposed to care for the trusts committed to their charge.

"Sigma" goes on to enumerate certain abuses in the apportionment of the revenues of the Church, a discussion of which would come better under the head of "What system should be adopted more equitably to distribute the revenues of the Established Church?" but which is rather out of place when "Church patronage" is the subject, although " Sigma" will doubtless be prepared to say that the evil complained of is mainly owing to Church patronage. But he would then have to be told that the patronage of the Church extended to the poor livings as well as to the rich.

"Another reason" "Sigma" gives "is, because it fosters a worldly spirit." So does the system adopted by the Independents, the Wesleyans, the Baptists; in fact, by any and all of the dissenting denominations. The system adopted by the Independents is simply this-they erect a chapel in any given locality; if the congregation should happen to be a rich one, they make it known how much they intend to give to a minister, say £750 per annum, and there upon invite from other congregations ministers to preach before

them, with the prospect of being selected to fill the vacant pulpit, and to become the recipients of the goodly salary, which may almost double that which they are at present in the receipt of. Surely, this is a system which fosters a worldly spirit! Only a little time ago, one of the Independent ministers, after being called in this fashion to his present charge, where he received some £600 or £700 per annum, cast about for a plan to increase that "good living.' The Rev. Joseph Parker, minister of Cavendish Street Chapel, Manchester, in the course of a lecture entitled "Church Finance Reform," developed his plan for the attainment, to him at least, of so desirable a result. He writes:

"Let me assume, then, that a church has determined on adopting weekly contributions as a method of sustaining Gospel institutions. It will be necessary to number the names of the congregation. Each individual will have given to him a slip of paper such as I hold in my hand, containing a list of the various objects which claim support. In addition to this slip every individual will receive thirteen small envelopes, for use during the ensuing quarter. Each envelope will be numbered-the number corresponding with that opposite the name in the general register. The individual will then proceed to the work of selfassessment, he will calculate his income, and determine, as in the sight of God, how much he will appropriate to religious purposes. Let us assume, for the sake of illustration, that an individual has an income of two pounds per week, and that, on balancing his various claims, he determines to devote one-tenth of this sum to God. He has, then, four shillings per week to 'lay by him in store,' out of which to meet the claims of religion. Let us further suppose that he devotes one-half of this consecrated money to the purposes indicated on this list; his next business will be to distribute the two shillings among the various objects thereon named, the other two shillings being laid by him in store for objects not within the sweep of this list. Now he proceeds to work in the following manner:-' The first object is the ministry; how much shall I devote to that? There are three services in the week, I shall give threepence to each. The next is the school; how much shall I give to that?—I shall give threepence a week. The next is missions, -put down fourpence a week. The next is incidental expenses,-put down twopence a week. The next is the chapel debt and interest,-say threepence a week. The next is the County Association,-say a penny a week for that. The last is for colleges, put down twopence.' In this manner each individual distributes his separate sum. Taking the figures just given as a guide, the whole will stand thus:--

Now these, though small figures, would produce results such as few churches can now boast. Let us suppose that a congregation of five hundred persons should, on an average, contribute according to the ratio just given, the issue annually would be as follows:

This is a larger sum than is given annually by any congregation of five hundred persons with which I am acquainted. We see here the power of littles.' How few people proceed to such an analysis as I have now indicated! Often the beneficence of the Church is the result of impulse, habit, or rivalry, rather than the expression of fervent love, or an assessment of property divinely given. I call your special attention to the simplicity of the working of this mode. Each member of the congregation, having filled up his paper, returns it to the treasurer. In the lobbies of the chapel, boxes are fixed, into which each worshipper drops the envelope containing the money as he enters to the morning or evening service. The treasurer's business is to empty each box from time to time, and to credit each person with the amount subscribed. By this means the treasurer can tell at a glance who has paid and who has not, and an arrangement may be made whereby defaulters may be called on from week to week. Such is the simple manner of carrying out this plan of Gospel support."

In the course of a lecture on "Popular Preachers," delivered subsequently to Mr. Parker's finance development, I took occasion to remark:

"On passing the booksellers', you observe an announcement of a pamphlet on 'Church Finance Reform,' by the Rev. Joseph Parker. Anxious to know what he has to say on the subject of 'the almighty dollar,' and with a desire to know if he is about to adopt Paul's plan-work with his hands at tent-making or otherwise, and then minister to the Church according to the ability which God has given him-you buy and read the pamphlet, and find yourself slightly mistaken. The plan is not to reduce the minister's salary, now over £600 per annum, but to increase it. The ingeniously devised scheme develops a plan by which a congregation of 500 persons should assess themselves weekly, devoting 'one-tenth to God,'—rather a taking form of expression,-the half of which tenth would have to be brought to the 'sanctuary,' enclosed in an envelope, and dropped into a box, accompanied with a printed form, in which the money is apportioned; the other half remaining 'in store' for special objects. The calculation is made that a congregation of 500 would in this way drop into the box £2,600 per annum. The minister would receive £975 of it, the remaining portion would go to the Sabbath School, Missions, Incidentals, Chapel Debt, County Association, and Colleges. If the congregation amounted to 1,000 in number (and surely that would be the case in Cavendish Street Chapel), of course double the amount would be dropped into the box, and the minister would find himself in the receipt of the goodly sum of nineteen hundred and fifty pounds per annum! The scheme is really unique; it is worthy of Barnum, and shows that Mr. Parker has geniusfor money-making. Can any one be so stony-hearted as not to answer his appeal? Only to think, as he tells us, that a London physician got 'A HUNDRED GUINEAS for examining a patient; whereas, if a minister had been called in, he would not