reasons) to be made the cause of abolishing certain demonstrations of religious gratitude for favours which we as Protestants are bound to acknowledge. All have heard of the "gunpowder plot," as we have been accustomed to call that fearful conspiracy. It was the work of Papists, in whose view the end sanctified the means-men who did evil that good might come, i. e. that the success of their church might ensue. The leaders in this foul project were in cases accomplished-perhaps in matters of morality well conducted; but their religious malevolence was sufficiently intense to dictate a deed of wholesale murder so atrocious, that the world has scarcely its parallel, if parallel there exists in history at all. This grand iniquity-rather its next to miraculous frustration-has, once a year, on the 5th of November, the anniversary of the treason, been celebrated by a religious service in the United Churches of England and Ireland. It seems, however, that across the channel there are clergymen who recoil from this part of their bounden duty. Among these is the former minister of St James' Episcopal Chapel, Edinburgh, Mr Daniel Bagot. This cleric is now not only Vicar of Newry, but Dean of Dromore, and perhaps has an eye to the episcopate, not surmising, like "poor Yorrick," that were mitres rained from heaven, not one of them would fit his head. Anyhow, if people are not to celebrate the discovery and overthrow of the gunpowder plot, we may at least record Dean Bagot's dislike to the anniversary. This may be most appropriately done by giving in extenso his letter to a gentleman of the same kidney-the Rev. Tighe Gregory :

"Rev. and Dear Sir,-I have seen a letter in the Northern Whig, addressed to me by you, commenting on the circumstance of the service for the 5th November having been used on that day in the Chapel of Ease in this town; and as you have thus publicly addressed me, I beg, through the same medium, to inform you that I had nothing whatever to do with the matter, and perfectly agree with you as to the desirableness of following the example which is held out in the Chapel Royal and in several other churches, by allowing that service to become universally obselete. I am happy to say that in my parish church I was not reading a service which Roman Catholics regard as offensive, on a day, and at the very hour, when so many of our Roman Catholic soldiers were fighting gallantly and nobly for the glory of England, and in opposition to Russian tyranny and arbitrary power; and you will, I am confident, agree with me in thinking that now would be a happy opportunity for those who have the authority to prohibit all further use of the service referred to, and to remove it from our Prayer Book, in order that there may be no obstacle, on all future fifths of November, to Protestants and Roman Catholics harmoniously, and cordially uniting to commemorate the splendid victory of Inkermann. I am, rev. and dear sir, your faithful servant, Daniel Bagot, Dean of Dromore, and Vicar-General of Newry and Morne.""

Dean Bagot is happy that on the 5th of November-the day appointed to praise the moral governor of the universe for a signal mercy-he was not reading the obnoxious jubilate service. In other words, he feels complacent in contemptuously neglecting his duty, and setting at defiance the ordinations of his church. This is rather a strange avowal on the part of a dignitary bound to practice and enforce obedience to authority.

It is very natural too, that acting illegally, he should like to find the stumbling-block removed out of his way, and be at liberty to do as he lists. Let people's predilections and whims be only homologated by law, and they will be very dutiful subjects indeed-whereas before, a la Bagot, they will take their own mind of things. We had thought that covenanted obligations were not thus to be disposed of-but involved strict and peremptory obligations to be enforced by the demands of authority, as their neglect fell to be punished by the strong arm of power. Dean Bagot therefore wishes the service of the 5th of November, to be prohibited by authority. He cannot say sic jubeo sic volo, but it seems there are in the body those who can do the business. But who are these?-not the heads of the church,-they are as much bound to their duty as the assistant curate. Parliament may do this-till then, we would say to this Dean Bagot, that it is his office to officiate on the 5th of November as on any other day specified in the rubric. But there is a reason for every thing, and our Dean has a very special reason for his omission of the church service on the anniversary of the gunpowder plot. "Roman Catholics regard it as offensive!" How moving! What a serious consideration to the minister of a Protestant Church! The evil is, there are more things our neighbours are offended at-they are mortally grieved that there is such a thing as Protestantism in the earth, and would uproot it this very hour if able-they bewail the fact that the parish church of Newry is not a mass-house, as we presume it was of old; the same holds of all parish churches-they covet the endowments which Mr Bagot shares to some tune we believe-they envy the present possessors of the cathedrals, and as one of the sect said, will never be satisfied till they retrieve the "subjects." Is the letter writer prepared to give up the religion he professes-his income and all besides which give offence to the Papists? Perhaps not-but on his own conciliatory scheme he might anyhow some of the opima spolia. Offence indeed! the Romanists are more consistent here, and do not bate an ace from their practices to please us. But blandly pleads our new fledged Dean-Roman Catholic soldiers are fighting for the glory of England. True they are, and it is their duty to do so. We do not disparage the bravery of any of our soldiers, to whatever quarter of the empire they belong or whatever be their creed-but we are not prepared to give up our Protestant services or institutions, because there are Roman Catholics in the British army. But the Dean, it would seem, desiderates the abolition of the 5th of November service, " in order," pray attend to the argument!" that there may be no obstacle on all future fifths of November, to Protestants and Roman Catholics harmoniously and cordially uniting to commemorate the splendid victory of Inkermann." Was ever such utter drivel penned-was ever such a preposterous reason assigned for mutilating the public services of a church-did ever such nonsense find expression in a letter or its postscript. If the commemoration suggested is to be one of roast beef and malt liquors, there is no doubt the church service might mar its harmony, or, occurring at the dinner hour, incommode hungry people. But if the celebration is to be of a religious kind, Mr Bagot knows or ought to know that Romanists would

not join with Protestants for such an object-such a union is expressly forbidden them. But because it happened that a battle in the Crimea was fought on the 5th of November, is that to be allowed in all time coming to prevent the religious celebration of a great national anniversary ? Why should not the Romanists eschew certain of their ways to conciliate us-giff for gaff is fair play-but we are really quite easy about the matter. Such absurdity as we have printed in the letter of Mr Bagot is quite contemptible. We shall require better reasons for obliviating a great public festival, than its occurring on the anniversary of a great battle at which Romanist and Protestant warriors fought side by side. As for conciliating the Papists, this is indeed a bootless task. A truly great man-our distinguished countryman Dr Chalmers,-in his speech on Catholic Emancipation, tickled his vivid fancy with the idea of Papists yielding to the influence of truth when no longer irritated by political severities. The imagination of this worthy person deceived him -others were deceived in the same way. Rely upon it, the abrogation of the service of the 5th of November would have the same issue. If we cannot give Romanists more than this poor concession, we had as well keep the gift to ourselves. The celebration of the 5th of November may be abolished-it may be useless to perpetuate it any longer-as useless as it was to search the lower story of the Parliament buildings in London at the commencement of each session, to ascertain if there were no combustibles there deposited, and another explosion imminent-but we shall ask other and better arguments than the one alleged to wit that a battle was fought on the same day, in which our Protestant and Romanist soldiers fought side by side in a corner of Russia. The Sister Church would be fully entitled to celebrate the day on which Popery, as the national religion, fell by the same legislative agency which had given it a footing in the land, and pecuniary support. But more might be said in favour of dropping this festival, than the anniversary of a deed, which we trust tens of thousands of Romanists would regard with horror, -yielding to natural and moral impulses.

Thus far we have proceeded in discussing, however briefly and imperfectly, a subject of considerable importance. We disassociate it altogether from the impressions of the hour,-and seek to reason where others might only feel. There is lukewarmness and indifferentism to denounce,—there is also morbid excitement to; control, and such excitement is likely to be evolved during a season of hostilities with a powerful and hated enemy. We would treat the Romanist soldier as well as the Protestant in every respect whatever the same. In such a case we should deprecate invidious distinctions, and believe that what would be so unfair in principle will never be exemplified in practice. But we do not choose to abate from any of the demands of Protestantism on that account, or to sacrifice any propriety of Protestantism to a respect for military valour. This quality we would regard apart from religious convictions altogether. Union among citizens of different creeds is not confined to the battle-field or trenches, but obtains in other cases of importance, where it is not required that either party should sink their special views or modify their public services. We do not choose to yield here ;-we do not ask conVOL. XIX.

C

cessions from the adverse party;—we agree to differ;-we do not desire to awaken an improper feeling towards a member of the Church of Rome ;- -we have already disclaimed all such intent, and express our wish that men in society should be treated agreeably to their deserts, whatever their religious sect and professions.

But Popery as a religion we feel bound to denounce ;- —we grieve over its existence in the world, and earnestly desire its overthrow ;-we appreciate its latent strength,-we are contemporary with its struggles for power and influence in the nations. It is an evil to be opposed,—a delusion to be dispelled,-a power to be resisted. How is this to be done? By the exhibition of the Word of God,-by appeals to rightly-constituted reason, by exposures of the sophistry employed by Romanists, and those still worse than they, the Romanists within the pale of a Protestant and evangelical church. To all must be added fervent prayer for the divine blessing, not forgetting the paramount necessity why Protestants should demonstrate the Scriptural character of their faith by lives of superior holiness, and wisdom, and benevolence.

THEOLOGICAL TENDENCIES OF THE AGE.'

THE wise man said that there is nothing new under the sun. This holds true even in those departments of study where we are the most inclined to assert the originality of our ideas. In many instances in which we have been confident that we were entitled to the merit of a discovery, we have yet come to know that it had certainly been suggested by the sagacity of others, and indicated by facts, which we had for a time forgotten. A stray memorandum in our common-place book may suddenly bring to our recollection the source from which we drew the undoubted germ of our theory, and surprise us by the true discovery that the anxious and jealous care with which we had fostered the foundling, had at length imposed upon ourselves, and betrayed us into the delusion that we held to it a fatherly relationship. It might be very humiliating to the pretensions of modern originality to ascertain how much our most original and independent thinkers do really owe to those who have preceded them, to what extent the most marked peculiarities of thought and expression have been suggested by a model which chanced to astonish or please, and how far the most beautiful passages of modern literature, or the most triumphant excursions of modern intellect, are merely the developement of that which had been thought and written long ago. The anxiety to be singular, and to be the pioneer of a new path to knowledge, has not been rewarded with the discovery of anything really new, but has rather found employment in re-opening old

1 Theological Tendencies of the Age; an Inaugural Lecture delivered at the opening of St Mary's College, on Tuesday the 28th November 1854, by the Rev. J. TULLOCH, D.D., Principal and Primarius Professor of Theology, St Mary's College, St Andrews. Edinburgh: Paton & Ritchie. 1855.

pathways, which by general consent had been shut up and neglected, because they were useless or deceptive. It is, however, curious to observe the very different judgment which is applied to the appropriation of ancient and modern literary or intellectual treasures. Those writers receiving the highest acknowledgment of their originality, have avowedly and purposely drawn without stint from the fountains of ancient wisdom, but this has in no degree interfered with their own character or claims. No man is accused of plagiarism because he acquires a purity, elegance, and power of expression, from intimate familiarity with the models of ancient excellence, or even because he continually employs the singularly happy forms and illustrations of classical lore. Even Milton, who of all men was lavish in his use of the idioms, the philosophy, and the eloquence of Greece and Rome, was never for a moment accused of the debt which he owed to those great poets whose method he followed, and whose style and spirit he so happily infused into his own. Will it be believed that the only charge of this nature ever preferred against Milton was as to his " use and imitation of the moderns in his Paradise Lost?" It would appear then, that however closely we copy the style or borrow the philosophy and poetry of the ancients, we shall escape the charge of plagiarism; but that an idea or a style copied from a modern author constitutes the offence. The literature of the ancients is thus regarded as a common treasure, which every man may appropriate to himself without challenge. And in this way also we understand how some theological writers of the present age are regarded as men of original and independent minds.

It is not to be denied that in general literature the same ideas and trains of thought have often been suggested to different minds without any mutual communication whatever. For example, the beginning of the Pilgrim's Progress bears a noticeable resemblance to the beginning of Dante's Vision; yet no man supposes that John Bunyan knew anything of the Florentine Poet or of the Divina Commedia. We might give many instances of such unconnected and alien resemblances. But it is very probable that even in those English works where peculiarities of association or style do undoubtedly owe their existence to classic models, the writer may often have been as unconscious of the exotic source of their idea as Bunyan was ignorant of the existence of Dante. If w recollect rightly, Lord Brougham somewhere has shown that the finest and most impressive passage in Burke's speech on the Nabob of Arcot's debts, is owing to the introduction of a figure employed both by Demosthenes and Livy. Dr Johnson's comparative estimate of the Latin poems of Milton and Cowley is expressed in his own turgid and stately style, and is announced as the spontaneous and unsuggested verdict of the critic; but for all this, it is merely a paraphrase and amplification of a criticism which had been uttered a hundred years before.

While we thus recognise the direct obligation which one author often unconsciously owes to another in general literature, we are scarcely prepared for the far greater obligations and relationships which are discernible between theological authors. In this department of study there are fixed and definite themes for consideration,-there are the same mate