ever shall receive one of such children in my name receiveth me," as though John felt convicted in his own mind that he and his fellow-disciples had infringed their Master's injunction by forbidding the man who followed them not, inasmuch as they thereby may have been proudly setting themselves up above another, and may have refused to receive a little child of Christ's flock. So again the subsequent observations of our Lord, (verse 42,) "Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea,"-do they not show the sin and awful responsibility of those who "forbid " a true disciple of Christ working for him because he "follows them not,” inasmuch as they may be thereby offending, discouraging, putting a stumbling-block in the way of a little one of Christ's flock. In the same way the concluding observation, (verse 50) "Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another," may it not be thus paraphrased, Have peace with those, who, though they do not follow you, yet are of my flock, have the true salt in them. (Matt. v. 13.) are of the same body, (1 Cor. xii. 12.) are one with you in me. Do not be at strife with them; do not exalt yourselves above them; do not reject them; do not refuse to have communion with them; forbid them not, because they follow you not.'

Now, are not the Tractarians, and many others, some of whom are, perhaps, little aware of it, continually guilty of neglecting this injunction of Christ? Is not every act and impression which has the effect of making a separation between the person who does it or uses it (who, of course, is here supposed to be a true disciple of Christ), and another, who differs from him, but who

is, nevertheless, also a true disciple, an infringement of this injunction of the Lord's? Is this not one part of the sin of schism? That the Church of Rome is guilty of this sin when she denies the possibility of salvation to the multitudes of true Christians who are out of the pale of that Church, there can be no doubt. But, the Tractarians are equally guilty, when they say, that what they call the "uncovenanted mercies of God," are what alone can be relied on for salvation by dissenters from the Church of England by human laws established. In the same way, many other members of that Church are guilty, who, however, are not much in the depths of the heresy of Tractarianism. But the sin is more prevalent still. Are not, for instance, Baptists guilty of this sin, when they refuse to partake of the Lord's Supper, except with those who have been baptised as adults, nay more, except the rite has been administered in a particular form, by dipping? Is not the Church of England as a body guilty of this sin; on the other hand, where it shuts out from its body those who think infant baptism unscriptural (Article XXVII. with Canons 5, 6, and 27)? Or those who think that human laws may not inflict death for any crime, except for murder only (Article XXXVII. with Canons 5 and 27)? In the same way, other examples might be given, but the most common form of this sin is the every-day uncharitable, harsh, and separating expressions used against persons who are true, but, owing to human nature, yet imperfect children of God. It must not be understood that these observations are intended to suppress in the least the most open, free, and uncompromising rebuke of error, whether of doctrine or practice, or to prevent the earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. Jude 3.

It must never be forgotten, that Paul twice repeated the strong rebuke of those who preach "another gospel which is not another," that they might be "accursed." Gal. i. 6-9. And, if ever such a rebuke were needed, it is to the "mystery of iniquity" (2 Thess. ii. 7.) exhibited in the doctrines and practices of the Tractarians. But, there is a vast difference between rebuking error in such an uncompromising way, and cutting off or separating those who hold it. 2 Thess. iii. 15. If they separate themselves, it is an act for which they are responsible; but, let those who desire to be disciples of Christ, beware of doing anything whereby they may cut off or "forbid " a fellow-worm, lest, while thinking they are merely cutting off one who is in gross error, they are themselves in error, and are, in fact, committing the sin of schism towards a little child of God.

MARY SPENCER.

SEVERAL, indeed a great many anxious inquiries have reached us on the subject of the supposed discontinuance of Miss Howard's interesting story of Mary Spencer.' We take this mode of informing our readers that it was finished in our October number of last year. Unlike many injudicious writers, the author had the good sense to leave her young collegian, as, alas! multitudes of sons and brothers are left, on the downhill road to apostasy. Very little good is done by tales that end, as a matter of course, with the recal of all who have gone astray: a plan that only pampers the imagination, and by inducing an undefined expectation that everything will end well, often deadens our present efforts on behalf of some who are still within reach of the warning or persuasive voice. Mary Spencer' is published separately, but with no additional information as to the finale of Edward's career, which may naturally be supposed unfinished as yet, in point of time. Perhaps he was among the non-placets, who fought the battle of Popery on behalf of Mr. Ward: perhaps among the placets who most justly degraded him.

Review of Books.

RIDLEY SELDON, or, the way to keep Lent. A Tale for the Times. By A. Howard, Author of Mary Spencer-Dalton.

We do not often meet with so bold and determined a rejection of the via media in all its ramifications, bylanes, and by-ends, as this book presents us with. Generally we find a degree of cautious hesitation in denouncing popery as a defined system of plain antiChristianity. What between the grave-clothes that John Newton describes as still hanging about the Church of England after she rose from the tomb of Popery, and the lingering indifferentism of bygone years of spiritual slumber; and the insidious effect of writings that have for the last fifteen years been quietly undermining the foundation of our faith on those points, we have come to be sadly mystified, unable to discern, or afraid to pourtray the strongest lineaments