ject of dispute, the time for the celebration of Easter, and the fashion of dressing the hair to be observed by ecclesiastical persons, are particularly mentioned. The Roman computation required the paschal solemnities to commence on the first Sunday after the fourteenth, and before the twentysecond of the equinoctial lunation. But the Britains and Scots had been taught to commence their Easter services on the first Sunday after the thirteenth, and before the twenty-first day of the same moon. Hence, when the Sabbath occurred on the thirteenth, their rejoicings began a week earlier than those of such as were in communion with Rome.

It was in the year 664, that Oswy, who had recently united the powerful kingdom of Mercia to that of Northumbria, invited the opposing parties to meet him at Whitby. The leading disputants were patiently heard; but it was asserted, that the keys of Paradise were entrusted to St. Peter alone, and this politic tenet is said to have influenced the royal mind in favour of the papal advocates. The decision of Oswy became an act for uniformity, and led to the ultimate expulsion of the Scottish teachers from the Anglo-Saxon territories. They saw, that to conform with this enactment would be to concede to the churches planted by the Romanists, a supremacy on account of their connection with the papacy, unjust in itself, and dangerous to the Christian cause. The thing required might be trivial, but the principle of subjection was not to be admitted.

The scheme of usurpation thus established, had been long devised; but the sanctity and talent of Aidan, and of Finanus, his successor, were the safe-guard of liberty to their clergy and converts. Colman, who was next raised to the see of Landisfarne,

inherited the virtue, without the ability of his predecessors, and the opportunity thus presented for encroachment was eagerly improved. It is also important to observe respecting these injured men, these patriarchs in the cause of English nonconformity, that to the latest period of their influence, their piety and zeal, their devotion and their learning, were such as to extort the plaudits even of their enemies, a fact which may in some measure account for their being abandoned by a prince, who, while giving law to the Octarchy, could reconcile the conduct of the assassin with the hope of the Gospel.*

The above statements are supported by indisputable evidence, and if correct, the question as to the extent of Anglo-Saxon obligations to papal Missionaries, is not to be determined by a comparison between the paganism of the Saxon hordes on the shores of the Baltic, and the faith embraced by their descendants in England, in the days of Theodore or Bede; but between the probable influence of the faith published by the preachers above adverted to, and that promulgated by the more effective instruments of the papal authority. For it will hardly be supposed, that the men whose zeal scattered the seeds of the kingdom, from the northern extremities of Saxon Britain, to the borders of her southern provinces, were of a character to halt even there, had not the ground been already occupied by foreign agents. If the reader will bear in mind, the concession as to the character of these instructors, which has been cited from their enemies, and connect with it what is known of the state of religion among our Saxon fathers, he will scarcely be at a loss to determine whether this enterprise of the papacy, should not be viewed by every Englishman with much

Bede, iii. 14. 21. 25, 26.

less of pleasure than regret. If it were in the heart of Gregory the Great, or of Austin, generally to serve our pagan ancestors, the motive is surely worthy of respect; but your present correspondent is constrained to utter a useless lament over the success of their scheme, however well intended.

I am aware that a Catholic disputant would attempt to free himself from the difficulty which this paper may put before him, by claiming the Scottish Missionaries themselves, as the fruit of the labours of St. Patrick, or of the monk Palladius. But it happens somewhat unfortunately, that even the existence of the former ecclesiastic has been thought, by certain antiquaries, to be rather problematical, and of the latter still less is in any way reported. The views of either, therefore, as to matters of doctrine or discipline, may be justly considered as lost in the mist of those distant ages, with which their names have been connected. Admitting the existence of these apostles, it remains to be proved, that the seeds of the Gospel were until their day wholly unknown among the barbarous people, who are said to have been so greatly benefited by their generous labours.

It is

certain that the Irish, the Scotch, and the Welsh believers, in the seventh century, were contemplated by the papal Missionaries as of one faith and one order;* and equally certain, that their Christianity, come whence it may, was of a less pliant texture than had at that period obtained among the nations of the west. The spirit which dictated the rejecting of the claims of St. Austin on the part of the Britons, was that which suggested the same line of conduct to the Scottish Missionaries in the debates at Whitby. The point vir

* Usher's Religion of the Ancient Irish and British.

tually urged in both instances, and that which in both instances was indignantly spurned, was the absolute supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.

The independence of the AngloSaxon Church has been a favourite hypothesis with many of our antiquarian divines. It is, however, fearfully shaken by events, which immediately followed the dispute before Oswy. Four years later, Theodore, a monk of Tarsus of Cilecia, was appointed to the see of Canterbury, by the authority of the Pontiff Vitalian, while the successive appeals of Wilfrid of York, from the decision of the English metropolitan, to the tribunal of the Pope, were found to be still more hostile to the ecclesiastical freedom of the country. Such also as may be disposed to laud the influence of papal Christianity on the ferocious passions of our fore-fathers, will do well to ponder over the history of the avowedly Christian Thanes of Northumbria, during the eighth century. In that brief interval, the sceptre passed through the hands of fourteen princes, of whom certainly not more than one escaped a death unconnected with violence or disgrace. The crimes of the successive aspirants shocked the humanity of Charlemagne, and compelled him to denounce the Northumbrian nation as more desperate than pagans. Nor could the civil liberties of a people have been of a very envious description, which were so easily passed into the hands of such ecclesiastics as Dunstan and Odo. The reader, also, who would see the debasing effects of the monastic spirit on the feelings of a nation, may consult Bede's epistle to Egbert, and the fulfilment of the Presbyter's prediction, as detailed in the revolting story of the Danish invasions. In a word, of the princes who filled the English throne, from Alfred the Great, to Edward the

of the conclusions which his readers are likely to draw from his observations would be unjust, both to England and Scotland.

GENTLEMEN,-I noticed, with pain, a communication in your number for March, signed "A Friend of Missions."

I was grieved, because it was a statement fitted to excite improper feelings in the minds of persons on both sides of the Tweed. I fear that the impression which the paper is likely to make on the minds of many of your readers can only serve to injure that cause the writer professes to advocate.

The writer's intention seems to be, not only to reply to the London minister, and to vindicate the objectionable passage in the Report of the Scottish Missionary Society, but to take that passage as a point d'appui, from whence to direct rather heavy charges against the friends of Missions in the south, and also to make an appeal to his countrymen about the propriety of showing, for the future, less liberality to the religious Institutions of England.

Without entering into the question between your two correspondents, respecting the reasons why the Deputation from the north was not favourably received in London last year; or with the various points mooted concerning the suitability or non-suitability of the members of the Deputation, which would be an invidious task; I consider it my duty to lay before your readers some corrections of the writer's statement of accounts between the two countries, and endeavour to show that some

At the same time, I wish it to be understood that, on far higher grounds than some of those taken by your correspondent, the friends of Missions in the south should ever be willing, according to their ability, to assist the religious Institutions of the north, when urgent and sufficient claims are presented. I hope nothing I am about to say will lessen this readiness, but, on the contrary, tend to promote that mutual co-operation among the Christian inhabitants of Britain in supporting religious Institutions, which will, I trust, increase, as the wants of the heathen world are more discovered.

I expect that I am not misrepresenting the intentions of the writer of the Reply, when I say, that it appears to be his wish that the following inferences should be drawn from his paper:

1st. That, hitherto, Scotland has been generous towards English religious Institutions.

2dly. That England has hitherto been ungenerous to the religious Institutions of Scotland; and,

3dly. That, should England make no alteration for the better

in her conduct, it will be the duty

of Scotland to restrain her liberality, or direct it to the support of her own Institutions.

The first inference I admit. I think Scotland has done much, and done well, in assisting many of the religious Institutions existing in this country. Considering the amount of her population, and the means possessed by the people, she has been liberal. I am most happy in having this opportunity of declaring my opinion on this point.

The second inference I do not admit. Before I could do so, it

must be shown that Scotland possesses more religious Institutions than she really does; that the annual expenditure of her Societies is much greater than it really is; that when applications were made to England by Deputations from the north, less had been given, in proportion to the claims of the Institutions, than what had been given to the Deputations of similar Societies from England; and also that there are in Scotland Societies which have the very same object in view, with some of the English Institutions assisted by the friends of religion in the north.

The third inference may appear to be plausible in theory; but I trust, for the sake of Scotland, as well as England, that it will never be realized in practice. I cherish this hope on account of the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom; for I am prepared to show that such a procedure would be injurious, not so much to England, as to the cause of religion in the world. Neither can I imagine that the good sense, and good principle, of my countrymen will allow them to moderate their liberality, because one Society in Scotland has called upon them to do so. They will justly question the right of any single Institution to dictate, or even to recommend, a restraining of their contributions to the religious Societies of the south, although that Institution should bear the national

name.

In farther directing the attention of your readers to this subject, my intention is to show that your correspondent wishes his readers to take too much for granted; that he has made partial representations respecting the obligations of England; and that he has so written, as if the complaint of the Scottish Missionary Society should not be viewed as that of one Society, but rather as ex

pressing the complaints of other Institutions in Scotland. How far such is the case will, I trust, be seen as we proceed.

First. From the writer's remarks, we might suppose that the conduct of the London ministers towards the Deputation of the Scottish Missionary Society implicates, in some degree, the whole of England. Hence the array of figures against this country, which would never have appeared had the circumstance alluded to not taken place.

We

Paris was once considered only another name for France; but I never knew before that London included England. The London ministers, numerous as they are, do not compose one fiftieth part of the Dissenting ministers of England; and while we in the country wish to cherish towards our metropolitan brethren sentiments of respect for their works' sake, and willingly commit to their management, and that of their friends, our contributions for religious Institutions, we acknowledge no supremacy, no superiority. cheerfully act in union with them, in the great cause of Christianity; but we are Congregationalists, and every church acts independently, when applications are made to assist any object of Christian benevolence. Before such a sweeping charge should have been brought against the whole of England, the various counties ought at least to have been attempted; and, after presenting claims which deserved the consideration of the Christian public, these had been rejected, then, and not till then, should the Dissenters of England be charged with indifference to the religious Institutions of the north.

Secondly. The writer appears to take it for granted, that while Episcopal, Moravian, Hibernian, Continental, Jews', and Wesleyan Methodist's Societies have all re

ceived pecuniary aid from Scot land, the Congregational churches of London, or England, are to bear all the blame for not being more liberal to the Scottish Society; that they are liable for all the sums transmitted to England for religious purposes; and that, if they do not return an equivalent, they are ungenerous and unjust.

Now, this is not friendly of the Friend of Missions." Why should the Congregationalists, (Baptist and Pædo-baptist) be viewed as having incurred the debt of £150,000., of which, according to his statement, not one eighth part has been returned, in kind, to Scotland? If the Scottish Missionary Society is indeed the representative of all the religious Institutions in Scotland, which, by the way, is rather an assumption, why did not its Committee apply to the supporters of the Church Missionary Society, and the Jews' Society, and obtain collections in the parish churches of London, and throughout England? Why not apply to the Wesleyan Methodist Conference to be permitted to make collections in their numerous chapels in the metropolis and elsewhere? Was all this done? If it was, and unfavourable answers were returned, why not distinctly state the fact, and let those who were equally, nay more uncourteous than the Congregational ministers of London, bear their share of the blame? But was no application made to any of the Denominations mentioned? Then, with what candour can the Friend of Missions bring his array of sums, as contributed to ten different Institutions by Scotland, as a charge professedly against English Christians, but in reality against the Congregational ministers and churches of London and England?* I

* I am aware that there are a few Scottish Presbyterian congregations in Lon

speak thus, because they compose the class of persons chiefly spoken against for not showing more liberality to the Scottish Institution.

Surely, it would have been more candid in the writer to have considered (as he was going on the principle of reciprocal contribution) what assistance those religious Institutions had received from Scotland, which the London ministers, and the churches in the country, principally support. If he had done so, how very different would have been the state of the account!

I apprehend that a much smaller balance will appear against the Dissenters of England; for, be it remembered, it is against them the principal charge is made. Other denominations were not tried; so that, in common justice, they cannot be condemned for non-compli

ance.

But, before I estimate the accounts on this principle, there is rather a formidable mistake of your correspondent's which must be corrected. He commences the account between the Scottish Missionary Society and the English public in 1815, and that of the Congregational Union in the same year. Now, he should have known that the Edinburgh (now the Scottish) Missionary Society did not make any application to England till 1819, and that the Congregational Union did not apply till 1820. He may therefore deduct four years, at least, from his statement, and make his calculations for six, instead of ten, years. This will make the Cr. side a little less; but it will materially alter the Dr. side of the

don, and in some other towns of England; but surely no objection could be made by any of them to a Presbyterian Institution receiving collections from their congregations. I am therefore supposing that all this want of co-operation was on the part of the Congregationalists. Am I right in doing so?