the garment as would still leave it in a sense, one. The question with the soldiers was, whether they should rend it into so many separate parts, so that each man might have his share of it; or whether one of them should have it, whole and entire. In his conclusion respecting the ecclesiastical sense of the noun, we fully concur. On this point, the author agrees substantially with Mr. Wesley, who has defined schism to be a division in a church, not a separation from one. Adopting this interpretation, Mr. Binney examines the controversy between the Dissenters and the established Church; and argues that the Dissenters are not guilty of schism, inasmuch as they are separated from the Church, and do not create a division in it; and he is willing to allow the Methodists also the benefit of this conclusion, provided, however, that they are really in a state of separation from the Establishment. If they are still in the Church of England, the author conceives they are chargeable with a schism of the most flagrant description; but, if separated from it, then, he admits, they may be defended from the charge on broad,. general, Protestant principles. We are at some loss to understand the reason why the case should be thus put hypothetically. There are Dissenters, it is true, who speak of the Methodists as "amphibious sectarists;" but we did not expect that Mr. Binney, who, we are persuaded, cherishes no unkindly feeling towards the Methodists, would express himself so doubtfully as to the relative position which they occupy. The Methodists do indeed deny that they separate from the Church of England on the ground generally assumed by the strict Dissenters, viz., that its alliance with the State is a violation of its allegiance to the Great Head of the church. They do not rank themselves among those Dissenters who, with Towgood in the last century, and with Mr. Binney in the present, characterize the Church of England as herself schismatic, in compelling them to separate from her communion, because they cannot in conscience own that temporal domination to which she has subjected herself.

departure from the Church as the strict Dissenters. Nor do Church-writers themselves ever speak of the Methodist body as a part of the national Church. The Bishop of London does not, in the passage which Mr. Binney has quoted; nor does the Bishop of Exeter, who has adopted a tone so friendly towards them.

The Methodists, then, upon Mr. Binney's own principles, are not guilty of the sin of schism. Whether they can justify themselves in separating from the estab lished Church at all, seeing they were not prepared to follow the Dissenters to the extreme ground on which they have placed themselves, is another question ;a question, however, which they are prepared to meet. The Methodists, who are the parties most immediately concerned in the scriptural settlement of that point, are persuaded that other reasons than a conviction of the sinfulness of the establishment of a Church by the law of the land may justify them in assuming the independent position which they now occupy; and Mr. Binney also appears to entertain the same persuasion, when he proposes "to look at the act of our fathers in making a direct and deliberate secession from the Establishment," in the reign of Charles II. That secession was not made on the principle that an established Church is unscriptural. Many of those who then withdrew from the Church of England, Mr. Binney himself says, believed not only "in the justice" but even in the "necessity of an Establishment." They withdrew from the Church in order to evade the burdens which the Act of Uniformity sought to impose upon their consciences, and which they would equally have resisted had the Church been unconnected with the State, and the Act proceeded from the spiritual rulers of the Church alone. And yet Mr. Binney eulogizes them for the sacrifices which they made. For this we blame him not. We, too, venerate those honoured names which shed so pure and bright a lustre on the page of our national ecclesiastical history; and our object in referring to them is to show, that there is, in the judgment of others as well as ourselves, a ground on which the Methodists may vindicate their separation from the Church. If the secession of those whom the Dissenting churches claim as their "fathers" was justifiable; then it is not necessary for the Methodists, in order to their justification, to follow the children of those "fathers" in their wider deviations, and adopt with them the principle which their "fathers" repudiated, that of the unlawfulness of a church Establishment. If the Me1835. P

thodists are only allowed the same liberty of conscience as is conceded to the Nonconforming Ministers of 1662, they can successfully defend their own secession, notwithstanding that they also, as a body, "believe in the justice and necessity of an Establishment."

Memoirs of a Serjeant late in the Forty-third Light Infantry Regiment, previously to and during the Peninsular War; including an Account of his Conversion from Popery to the Protestant Religion. 24mo. pp. 278. 3s. Mason. -The subject of this narrative is still living, and has therefore withheld his name. He is by birth an Irishman, and was by education a Roman Catholic. Having entered into the army in early life, he has seen much hard service, the affecting details of which are here related. He was present at the siege of Copenhagen; and fought under Sir John Moore in Spain, when that unfortunate General was killed; and he shared in all the hardships of the retreat and embarkation which subsequently took place. Having returned to England with the wreck of Sir John's army, he was afterwards sent to Portugal and Spain, where he was concerned in many a sanguinary engagement under the command of the Duke of Wellington. For some years he has held a situation in the Royal Military Asylum at Chelsea, where he was converted from the errors of Popery, and brought to the enjoyment of the Christian salvation, by the instrumentality of the Methodists, of whose society he is an exemplary member. The volume is well written; remarkable at once for the neatness, simplicity, and liveliness of its style, and the soundness of the principles which it embodies. To young persons especially it will present many attractions, and supply much information of superior value.

The Congregational Lecture. Second Series.The Causes of the Corruption of Christianity. By the Rev. Robert Vaughan. 8vo. pp. 432.-These lectures are on the following subjects:1 and 2. On the corruption of Christianity from tendencies in the present condition of human nature.-3 and 4. From misapprehensions of Judaism.-5, 6, and 7.

From

the influence of the Gentile philosophy.-8 and 9. From the influence of ancient Paganism. We quite agree with Mr. Vaughan, that the question has not been considered with the attention which it deserves. No one can have read even our common ecclesiastical histories without having the conviction almost forced upon him, that they do not exhibit the simple, yet majestic and wonder-working religion, of which

the description is to be collected from the Bible. Perhaps there are few who have not felt at such times that which led old Lynacre to exclaim, after reading the sermon on the Mount, "Either this is not Christianity, or we are not Christians." Not many, however, seem to have inquired, in the spirit of a sound and impartial philosophy, into the reasons of the difference which, with so much pain, they have perceived. Dr. Priestley, indeed, professed to compile a History of the Corruptions of Christianity; but, if he had conducted his chemical as he did his theological inquiries, his name would have been by this time forgotten, or only remembered as that of a man who would have been both philosopher and heresiarch, but who had not the talent for either. Mr. Vaughan addresses himself to his task very differently. That his own views of church government have not influenced him in his conclusions from particular facts, it would be too much to say; perhaps too much to expect that it should have been so. He is an Independent, and a Dissenter; and as such, therefore, he will both think and write. For ourselves, we are satisfied neither with the assumptions of the uninterrupted-succession Episcopalian, nor the unchecked independencies of the Congregationalist. The first sees nothing but order, the latter nothing but liberty. The true Eclectic in religion will come much nearer the truth by combining both. Mr. Vaughan's last seven lectures relate chiefly, it will be seen, to the history of the Christian religion, and the various causes of its deterioration among its professors. They contain some very interesting notices of the Gentile philosophy, as well as of the Christian Fathers, whose mistakes the author points out with a faithfulness equal to that of Daillé, but in a spirit far less controversial. He does full justice to their numerous excellencies, and especially to their devoted piety. "The benefit I have derived," he says, "both as a Christian, and as a Christian Minister, from the attention I have been able to bestow on their works, is greater than I owe to any uninspired source;from the refreshing proofs they afford of the energy which the grace of Heaven may infuse where religious knowledge is singularly imperfect, and mixed, more or less, on all points, with erroneous conclusions." (P. 323.) We cannot agree with the author, however, in all his conclusions. Many of the corruptions of Christianity are accurately and instructively traced up to misapprehensions of Judaism, or to the influence of the Gen

tile philosophy, and Paganism; but it does not follow that every principle or practice to which a resemblance can be found in some part of Judaism or Paganism must be a corruption derived from one or the other. It appears to us that Mr. Vaughan does not always keep in view the proper signification of the word corruption, and the difference between that and substitution. In the very corruptions of Christianity a careful observer may always perceive a resemblance to some primitive truth; as in petrifactions, where the original body, being first encrusted by the extraneous matter, gradually disappears, and the transmutation becomes complete; but still, what is now a very different substance retains all the grand outline of the original figure. Thus, it is true that the notions entertained by many of the Fathers, (and still held in too many parts of the professing Christian world,) on the subject of sacramental efficacy, very greatly resemble the ancient opinions on magic,and occult qualities and powers; but Mr. Vaughan, in tracing the former to the latter, has not sufficiently adverted to the fact, that, under all dispensations of revealed truth, it has pleased God to appoint that, with proper obedience to certain positive injunctions, certain spiritual blessings should be connected. Nor has he, we think, in tracing certain corruptions of Christianity up to Paganism, always kept in view the fars of a history much earlier than any Paganism of which we now possess any records. He thus points out with much force the evils which have sprung from false authority in the church; but there are, in the progress of the argument, occasional deflections from the line marked by the principle, that all grand corruptions of Christianity originated in some part of Christianity itself, otherwise they had been substitutions, not corruptions. This false authority, for instance, he traces up to the power claimed by the heathen Priests, and exercised by them in conjunction with the State, whose head often chose to be himself Pontifex Maximus. The river is thus ascended as far as the cataracts, and is there found agitated and colluvious enough, it is true; but is there nothing beyond? Is not Paganism, both in doctrine and discipline, (so to speak,) a corruption, vast and terrible, certainly, but still a corruption, of Primitive Truth? On this very point of authority;-from Job xxxi. 11 and 28, it is evident that the Judges took cognisance of crimes against God, as well as against society;-Melchizedek, King of Salem, was likewise Priest of the most

high God;-and not only did Abraham consider it his duty both to instruct and govern in religious matters the nomadic tribe of which he was the head, (not unlike a modern Bedouin Chief,) but for this he was commended by God, and the commendation recorded in the pages of inspiration: "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment." We do not mean to insinuate that Mr. Vaughan is, in the usual sense of the expression, a partial writer. He does not, for instance, see in the legal establishment of Christianity by Constantine the source of evils which plainly had a previous existence. He says, "There is hardly another subject on which so great a degree of misapprehension prevails, as with respect to the comparative state of opinion in the church in regard to the doctrines of the Gospel during the interval which preceded the accession of Constantine and in the ages subsequent. The former period is not unfrequently adverted to as the age of Christian light and purity. The corruption of Christian doctrine by princely Bishops, perilous as those corruptions are admitted to have been, are almost trivial in comparison with those to which every tenet of the Christian faith was more or less subject when Bishops, if they had any existence, were distinguished by the enmity of Princes more than their favour. In the vast space between the age of Constantine and our own, there is scarcely a corruption of the truth as it is in Jesus presenting itself, which might not be shown to have made its appearance, and with considerable effect, in the first three centuries." It is to the first two lectures, however, that we attach the greatest value, and from which the general reader and student will derive the most advantage. Mr. Vaughan, in adverting to the obvious fact, that Christianity was not originally, any more than at present, (excepting, of course, those to whom it was communicated by inspiration,) imparted to disciples whose mind was a mere rasa tabula, refers to the corruption of human nature, and its tendencies, as the primary source of all the corruptions of religion. Christianity thus stands justified from the charges brought against it by a flippant infidelity, and which refer, properly, to its own idolized human nature. And here is the great, practical lesson which the Christian student of ecclesiastical history should be very careful to learn. The knowledge of the way in which human nature corrupts the religion which

So it continued until Mr. John Ward was appointed to labour in the Circuit. He resided at St. Neot's; and during his residence there, it was determined to make Biggleswade and the adjacent places into a separate Circuit, which took place in 1810. He then removed to Biggleswade, and God made him a special blessing to the people. During his ministry it became necessary to enlarge the chapel, which was done by adding fifteen feet to its length. The good work, thus happily commenced, received a severe check under his successor, who having imbibed Calvinistic sentiments, did not fail to propagate them. This induced many to leave the society, never more to return. This evil was, by God's blessing, considerably abated by the piety and zeal of Mr. John Sydserff and Mr. Isaac Bradnack, who succeeded him; both of whom were made useful to many souls. The good work continued to go on, with nothing material to mark its progress, or its decline, until Mr. Millman and Mr. W. H. Clarkson were appointed to labour in the Circuit. The preaching of the former was well received by the societies throughout the Circuit: and under that of the latter a general awakening took place; so that in almost every place sinners were converted to God. The Local Preachers' List received a considerable accession; and from this period we must date the beginning of that good work which has been advancing to the present day.

We had a small scciety at Hitchen, who worshipped in a barn, fitted up for the purpose. This was inconvenient, and became too small; and, by a chain of remarkable circumstances, we purchased a chapel, which was opened for divine worship on January 6th, 1830, by the Rev. James Dixon, from London.

In 1832 the societies began to think it high time to do something more for God, seeing that several of the congregations had become too large for the places in which they worshipped. In the autumn we began to erect a new chapel at Beeston, thirty-six feet by thirty, where there had long been a society, which, for want of room had not prospered to the extent it might have done. This chapel was opened on Wednesday, December 5th, by Mr. William Dawson, and the Rev. John Greeves. The collections amounted to £58. This chapel was soon filled to overflowing; and it became necessary to enlarge it as early as possible. The chapel at Biggleswade also became too small, so that the friends came to the resolution, that, should suitable premises offer, they

would purchase them, and dispose of the old property. To accomplish this, subscriptions were commenced, weekly and quarterly, in March, 1833.

The year 1834 will ever be memorable in the history of Methodism in the Biggleswade Circuit. On Thursday, January 23d, we opened a new chapel, thirty-eight feet by thirty, at Ashwell, a village seven miles east of Biggleswade; in the following April we enlarged our new chapel at Beeston, by an addition of fourteen feet, making it fifty feet by thirty. This was done at an expense of £106; £60 of which were raised by subscriptions, and public collections. It was re-opened on Friday, May 16th, by the Rev. George Cubitt, from London.

The chapel at Hitchen had become too small to contain the people; and, notwithstanding the noble effort which had been made a short time before, to discharge the debt of £320, the friends immediately purchased the adjoining property, and commenced a subscription to take the whole down, and erect a chapel sufficiently large to contain all who should feel disposed to worship there. This work was commenced, and the foundationstone laid by Thomas Ward, Esq., March 29th, 1834. Principally through the liberality of this gentleman, his excellent lady, and the late Mrs. Hudson, has the chapel been erected. The dimensions are sixty-four feet by forty-two feet and a half, inside, with a gallery fifteen feet deep at the back, for the choir and the Sundayschool children, over the vestry. This building, which is in a delightful situation, was opened for divine worship on Thursday, the 24th July. The Rev. Theophilus Lessey preached in the morning and afternoon; and the Rev. James Dixon in the evening. Mr. Dixon and the Rev. John Bell preached on the following Sabbath. A very lively interest was excited in the town and neighbourhood; the place was crowded with attentive hearers; and the collections amounted to the sum of £124.

During the erection of the Hitchen chapel, a new chapel (owing to a revival of the work of God) had been commenced at Newnham. Mr. Dixon kindly consented to open that on the following day, viz., Friday, July 25th. This chapel is thirty feet by twenty, and capable of holding all the inhabitants in the parish. It has been erected mainly by the kind liberality of our excellent friend Mr. Hine. The cost was about £100, and the collections at the opening amounted to £24.

Shefford, a town five miles west of