Observe, I pray you, that no inquiry is made into the correctness or incorrectness of Sir James's statements, though it might be presumed that a proprietor had good access to know the number of the people on his own lands, and observe particularly the design of marking the word "members" with inverted commas. Sir James is an Episcopalian, and by "members" of a Church means no more than adherents. The pamphleteers are Presbyterians, and by members of a Church mean communicants in a Church. Now if the Free Church had 1,122 communicants in Ardnamurchan, she must certainly comprise more than the half of 8,000. We venture to say that she has not 200 communicants throughout the whole parish.

But as to the actual number of the whole population of Ardnamurchan, while I could understand same confusion taking place between the district and the parish, I cannot by any possibility understand how the writers of the petition, or of the pamphlets, fell originally into the mistake; or how they can defend themselves in repeating it, unless it be that they took up the Edinburgh Almanac, where it is said that the population of Ardnamurchan is 5,581, of the Parliamentary Church of Strontian 982, and of that of Acharcle 2,016. This is said in the Almanac: but it is also said that the population of the parishes is inclusive of the districts formerly termed quod sacra parishes, though that of the latter is also in most given separately. (p. 325.) The parish of Ardnamurchan, including not only Strontian, and Acharcle, but also of Moidart and Arasaig, contains only a population of 5,581, according to the last census, and the two numbers of 982, and 2,016, are clearly and evidently included in this. This is a fact abundantly proven by the census returns. It is a fact which 1 feel so perfectly certain of, that I declare if you find any responsible Free Churchian who will call the thing in question, I am ready to pay the expense of a new survey should the statement of the Free Church prove correct-provided he pay the expense in the event of their being proved wrong.

If the petitioners to Parliament simply summed up the numbers which are given in the Almanac, without adverting to the explanation given regarding them, their carelessness is highly reprehensible. If they repeat what they know to be erroneous, their guilt is deep: and if, as they do, after having their error pointed out, they refuse to inquire, or to retract, their conduct is certainly not to be envied.

As a further proof of their Quixotism, in regard to this portion of the country, I may mention that Dr. Chalmers, some time ago, wrote to Sir James Riddell asking the use of the old castle of Mingary for a Free Church. The extreme absurdity of this request cannot be understood without a description of the ruined walls and the exposed situation of this old fortress of the MIans, and this would occupy too much of my space. But the Free Church attempting to roof in a large castle which has been battered by the winds and waves of the Atlantic for many hundreds of years, situated on a rock projecting into the ocean, and enclosing a large space of ground-is a task almost as hopeless as endeavouring to convince any man who knows the parish, that its population is 8,000 souls!

The conduct of the Free Church, in regard to sites in the parish of Kilmalie, is also deserving of notice, and of condemnation. This is the parish of which Mr. Cameron of Lochiel is patron, and concerning which the Witness newspaper wrote that mixture of Billingsgate and impiety, afterwards published in the form of a pamphlet, and circulated widely under the name of "Lochiel's Warning." In this most unchristian and most scurrilous production, unsparing abuse is heaped upon the chief proprietor of the parish, and the minister of the Established Church is de

nounced as an intercommuned person, who should be under a perpetual and universal ban throughout the parish, to whom no kindness should be shewn, with whom no intercourse should be held. Sad, indeed, it is, that a Journal, vaunting of its high-toned religion, should give utterance to such intense and revolting malignity, and equally sad is it to see a man of Baptist Noel's position and character, attempt to palliate, and even to vindicate such atrocity. He alone, as far as I know, inade such an attempt, and his vindication is as futile as his cause is bad. But to come to the facts. Lochiel, after having refused a site to the Free Church congregation, afterwards changed his purpose, and offered them one in the midst of the densest population, in as central a spot as any that the parish contained. But it was not in sight of the Parish Church, and it was rejected. A deputation from the Free Assembly examined into the circumstances. Their report was given in to the Assembly, 1845, by Mr. Begg of Newington, who, according to the accounts both of the Guardian, and the Witness newspapers, stated that the site offered by Lochiel was a mile and a half distant from the Parish Church. The truth is, it is only about 150 yards more than the mile. The mile-stones are there, and any one who chooses to look at them may know the distance. He said that it was a mile and a half from the shore. It is not a mile from the nearest point of the shore. He said, that ten farmers offered to Lochiel to allow a Free Church to be built on their lands. There never were ten, nor five farmers in Kilmalie, who adhered to the Free Church, and if there were, or are, let Mr. Begg produce or name them.

The Free Assembly appointed a farther committee or deputation, to investigate this famed case, and they also pronounced the site most unsuitable. They declared that the congregation were willing to accept of a site within a mile of the Parish Church, on either side yet they continued to complain of these 150 yards, to cavil at this ninth part of a hair; and heaped abuse unsparingly on Lochiel! I must pass over many incorrect assertions made by Mr. Begg, in regard to the hardships endured by the Free Minister, who is said to have been a "martyr," to have wept at the recital of his own distresses, and to pay the exorbitant rent of L.35 a-year, for his house; while in the face of all this, he was allowed to retain the manse for months after the Secession, to crop and pasture the glebe until it was convenient for him to dispose of his stock; and occupied a most excellent house, along with which he had at the very time a garden, a park of eight acres, arable land, and the keeping of three cows and a horse, all for the sum of L.35, a fair and moderate rent! Passing over all this, I must advert to the sayings of Dr. Candlish at the Inverness Free Assembly, regarding this matter. He is most indignant on the point, and accuses the proprietor of adding insult to injury-of tantalizing the people, by offering them a site just so near the place they were willing to take, as that their refusal might appear unreasonable." The arrogance of this language can be equalled only by its utter disregard of truth; and it would almost require one to imagine, that the whole Free Assembly learned their arithmetic from Mr. Begg, to account for their stickling so much about these few yards of road. Mr. Begg, I must tell you, says, in the speech to which I have already referred, that any one who compels a congregation of 250 individuals to walk two miles, on the Sabbath, to church, compels them to walk 1000 miles in the day, 52,000 in the year. And what an extent of Sabbath desecration is that! According to this truly ridiculous mode of computation, the 150 yards at Kilmalie, may be of importance; though it is difficult to see their great value on any other supposition.

It is proper to add, that Lochiel gave another site for the Free Church,

66

on another part of his Balachulish property-that he allowed its adherents to quarry stones of his land for a third church. Yet there is no mention whatever made of these acts of kindness. Lochiel's Warning" is circulated. He is accused of "adding insult to injury." His letters written in a most mild and Christian tone, are laughed at, at the Free Inverness Assembly, and he himself is held up to odium as a persecutor.

I am not done, however, with the history of this case. The people petitioned Lochiel once more for a site, and specified twelve localities on any of which they would be glad to have their church erected. Notwithstanding their treatment of him, he acceded to their request-offered them a place within the specified limits. But did they accept of it? Very far from it. They were offered a site considerably within the limits of the mile, on a spot for which they themselves had previously applied. But they refused it as unsuitable. It was not in sight of the Parish Church. I am not able to say, whether or not they have now arranged the matter. But if so, it must have been within the last fortnight; and this I know, that though most convenient and unexceptionable sites have been in their offer for the last two years, they have not yet quarried a stone for the Free Church, while they have indulged in exaggeration, mis-statements, and slander, which are truly humbling to contemplate.

I may appear to you to write strongly on this matter. But I say nothing unadvisedly. The true statistics of the case in contrast with the inventions of Mr. Begg, were made known, in a very able letter, by Mr. Campbell, Erract, a gentleman residing in the Parish, published in the Scottish Guardian, in July 1845, I think. This letter was never answered: and I am so perfectly satisfied of the truth of the statements I have advanced, that I defy any man to contradict them.

I might mention to you, further, and I am ready at any time to discuss before the public the other alleged instances of persecution in the West Highlands-the cases of Killean, Torosay, and Iona, but seeing that my letter has already swelled beyond due limits, I will conclude, by remarking, what is abundantly obvious, that the conduct of the Free Church, regarding sites in the Highlands, has been unreasonable, and unchristian, sectarian and selfish, regardless, in many instances, alike of charity and of truth.-I am, &c.

A HIGHLAND MINISTER.

Sermons on certain of the less prominent Facts and References in Sacred Story. By HENRY MELVILL, B.D., Principal of the East India College, and Chaplain to the Tower of London. Volume II. London: Rivingtons.

Sermons. By SAMUEL WILBERFORCE, M.A., Chaplain to his Royal Highness Prince Albert, and Archdeacon of Surrey. London: Burns.

Posthumous Sermons, with Pastoral Letters. Volume III. By the Rev. Henry Blunt, A.M., Late Rector of Streathem, Surrey. London: Hatchard and Sons.

A vast change for the better is acknowledged to have taken place before the close of the last, and since the commencement of the present century, in the sister establishment. It had participated, to a very great degree, in

the prevailing spiritual slumber of a period that has now, we trust, passed away. On the subordinate causes that led to this momentous result, we do not propose to enter; nor is it our present purpose to trace its progress. Our object is simply to furnish our readers with the means of judging, by specimens from the published sermons of three eminent clergymen, whose names are mentioned above, of the pulpit oratory which is admired by the more judicious and enlightened members of the Church of England, and meets, if we may come to such a conclusion from the celebrity of the reverend authors, and the wide circulation of their writings, with the greatest acceptance. And, while not insensible to the existing of some defects to which we may hereafter allude, we are bound in candour to say, that the perusal of these volumes has impressed us with unfeigned respect for the ability more or less apparent in them all, and with gratitude at beholding the earnestness of purpose therein shewn to bring forcibly before the mind the great truths of Christianity.

Of all the three, we may remark, that they are not characterized by what Sydney Smith, of facetious memory, declared to be a general feature of modern sermons-" decent debility." Nor do they follow the same wellworn track, presenting a series of common-place observations; but are such as any audience of ordinary intelligence might profitably listen to, without danger either of being roused by extravagance, or lulled into leaden slumbers. They are stamped with reality, and they are elaborated with care. Without being enthusiastic, they are earnest and to the purpose; for they dwell much upon the great truths of the Gospel and exhibit the Saviour. The trumpet is not blown with an uncertain sound; nor are men encouraged merely to a fair shew in the flesh," or to dependence upon a "form of godliness," while the power is absent. Nor are there many statements from which, were we examining them in detail, we would feel forced to record our dissent. But it is time to speak more definitely, and to state our opinion of each author in turn.

We begin with Mr. Melvill's volume, the second, it will be perceived, of a series of discourses intended to illustrate some of those passages in Scripture, which, while apt to be slightly dwelt upon by the superficial reader, may contain, when fully explained, much profitable and the more impressive, because unexpected, truth. Mr. Melvill has, we believe, in a great measure retired from the public duties of the ministerial office; but, for upwards of twelve years, he has been justly considered as one of the most eloquent and able preachers of which the Church of England-rich as that establishment is in dignities and emoluments can boast. His fame is thoroughly deserved; discourses of a more powerful cast than some which he has published, have not been given to the Christian world for many a day. With great vividness of imagination, he combines the rigorous exercise of the reasoning faculties; intellect and fancy are both exhibited in full play. Without the correctness and the classic eloquence of the few finished discourses on which the fame of Robert Hall rests, the orations of Melvill, if sometimes" o'erstepping the modesty of nature," are so full and rich in thought, so brilliant in expression, and appeal so powerfully to heart and conscience, as, in our view, to afford a high intellectual feast; while it seems evident that the preacher's enthusiasm kindles spontaneously, and that even in its loftiest flights, the writer still has it for his aim, not to exalt self, but to magnify the Saviour. Our only astonishment is, that the vein of such rich ore has been so abundant; while it is our delight to behold such high talent employed in the cause of sacredness.

Such is our general opinion of this eminent preacher. We must confess,

however, that he is too ingenious to be always satisfactory; sometimes toɔ careless in his inductions, and too sweeping in his conclusions. The present volume has, as we remarked, a peculiar object in view; but there is manifestly much need for a caution and guardedness in the treatment of similar topics, against which Mr. Melvill not unfrequently transgresses. The discourses in the volume are not, accordingly, all of equal merit. Of more than one, we must remark, that whatever of important truth is contained might more advantageously have been brought forward without any reference to the particular text which the author has selected. The great fault in them, is assigning, without any warrant from Scripture, a typical character to certain circumstances which have in general, by the most soberminded, been viewed in no higher light than as so many incidental details of historical narrative. Thus it seems exceedingly strange, merely because our Lord, in one of the parables, illustrated the condition of the visible Church by the good and the bad fishes enclosed in the net that was cast into the sea, to conclude that when, after his resurrection, he was seen by the disciples near the sea of Tiberias, the "fire of coals," with the "fish laid thereon and bread," (John xxi. 9,) represented, as our author maintains, "the visible Church before the Redeemer's appearance;" and that the same fire was intended to remind the apostle Peter of his former fall, since it was beside the fire that he stood warming himself when he was betrayed into denying his Master! Or who can believe that, when Christ said, Bring of the fish which ye have caught,” there was any reference meant, in a direction given wholly for a different and so much more natural purpose, to "the banquet, the marriage-supper of the Lamb, furnished from the contributions of every generation?" The truth is unquestionable, and most consoling; but it rests not at all on the passage in connection with which it is attempted to be introduced. Origen himself could not have spoken more wildly or less to the purpose; the most mystic and elaborately silly among some of the ancient interpreters could not have remarked more loosely.

66

The reader must not conclude that such vagaries form any thing like the staple of this volume; though we think some of the former volumes, not of this cast, that have been composed by Mr. Melvill, are, upon the whole, of superior excellence to this, in which the object kept in view has not unfrequently proved a snare. But the discourses entitled "The Finding of the Great Chamber;" The Spectre's Sermon;" The Misrepresentations of Eve;" The Bird's Nest;" (Deut. xxii. 6 and 7;) "Simon the Cyrenian;""Pilate's Wife;" and "The Examination of Cain;" are all of a high order, although there are occasional remarks in which we are unable wholly to concur.

66

From discourses which consist mainly of a chain of argument, more or less solidly compacted, it is difficult to quote separate passages, complete in themselves. The following extracts will illustrate our author's mode of treatment. The first is from the sermon on Eve:

"It was a large and liberal grant which God made to man, of the trees of the garden. 'Of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat.' It is true, indeed, there was one exception to this permission: man was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but of every other tree, he might not only eat, he was told to eat freely,' as though God would assure him of their being all unreservedly at his disposal. But now, observe, when Eve comes to recount this generous grant, that she leaves out the word 'freely,' and thus may be said to depreciate its liberality. We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. This is but a cold version of the large-hearted words: 'Of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat.' She is evidently more disposed to dwell on the solitary restriction, than on the generous permission: she is thinking more of the hardship from the