sary; and most surely those persons are not wise who regard them with indifference, much more those who regard them with contempt.

That the outward act might produce with more certainty the inward effect may be supposed to have been the reason why the Deity prescribed the numerous and almost frivolous rites and ceremonies for the observance of the Israelite: they were intended to alienate his mind from idolatry. For a like reason the Saviour required the Christian to perform the sacramental rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: that was an act by which the person baptized signified his assent to the covenant of obedience; this was an act expressive of a sense of gratitude to the Redeemer, which is the sure ground of Christian obedience, and to keep that grateful sense ever alive and active in the mind. The consecration of a sacred edifice is of the same import: it implies an engagement solemnly and sincerely undertaken by the parties present, and assented to, unless withheld by protests, even by the parties absent, but living within the district to which the edifice belongs. All who assent (and the majority bind all) directly declare by the act of consecration that they will regard it as the sacred House of God; that they will vindicate all legal and customary rights when duly claimed, and defend it from harm both by their own act and also by their heirs or other lawful successors and inheritors of their rights. An engagement thus made is as firmly binding as any legal document duly executed, and is only revocable either by the free and unanimous consent of all parties interested, or by the authority of the powers that be, which, in Great Britain, are the King, Lords, and Commons in Parliament assembled.

To give names to churches at the time of their dedication is a very ancient practice. The names given to the greater portion of Christian churches intimate that it became general when the Church of Rome, having adopted the worship of saints and angels, chose some one of them as the

patron and protector of the structure where religious worship was paid to that holy personage more especially than to any other. This was a continuance of the practice of the heathens, when they built and dedicated temples to Jupiter, to Apollo, to Juno, to Venus, and others of their countless divinities. The names given to Christian churches are generally the names of personages recorded as saints in the Roman calendar, but utterly unknown to the Protestant Church. The continued use of these names by Protestants may be justly ascribed to the necessity of the case. It is vindicated by Hooker in the following terms: "Touching the names of angels and saints, whereby most of our churches are called, as the custom of so naming them is very ancient, so neither was the cause of it at first nor is the use and continuance of it at this present hurtful. That churches were consecrated to none but the Lord only, the very general name itself doth sufficiently shew: inasmuch as by plain grammatical construction Church doth signify no other thing than the Lord's house. And because the multitude of persons, so of things particular, causeth variety of proper names to be devised for distinction's sake, founders of churches did that which best liked their own conceit at the present time, yet each intending that as oft as those buildings came to be mentioned the name should put men in mind of some memorable person or thing. Thus therefore it cometh to pass that all churches have had their names, some as memorials of peace, some of wisdom, some in memory of the Trinity itself; some of Christ under sundry titles; of the blessed Virgin not a few; many of one apostle, saint, or martyr, many of all." The judicious theologian, after thus disclaiming the idea that the churches were dedicated to the worship of the persons whose names they bore, proceeds to observe that the names given were intended to commemorate apostles specially ordained by the Saviour in person, martyrs

J Hooker, Book v. s. 13.

who died in vindication of the faith, and persons eminent for their piety and for the services they had rendered to the Church.

These arguments justify most amply the practice by which the churches used by Protestants continue to be designated by names given them before the Reformation; names of persons little known, and of uncertain deserving: but "charity thinketh no evil," and consequently the true Christian will not infer unworthiness where no cause appears, but will kindly presume that the persons whose names are given to our churches were persons of eminent piety, and may therefore without impropriety be retained.

The present increase of our population requires new churches in many districts, and the wealth and religious feeling or piety is very commonly ready to supply the want. The names of saints or personages unknown are in some instances given, although it is evident that there is no necessity for such practice. The names of many persons of our own country who have been distinguished for piety and virtue, and especially our protestant martyrs, might be given to our churches. When a private individual builds a church and consigns it to the public use, the church might bear his name, and thus the public would effectually and properly express the gratitude due for such great benefit conferred on the country, but especially on the vicinity of the church. It cannot be denied that this might be done when a church is built, as is done when a person having founded and in part endowed a college, the learned society is known by his name, which is at certain times solemnly recited at a commemoration of his bequests, with religious thanksgiving for his bounties.

Protestants concede the title of saint only to the twelve Apostles, the two Evangelists Mark and Luke, and the personage known in holy writ by the name of Michael the archangel. Of the propriety of this application of the title to those persons there is no doubt. Whether the title may be

allowed to other persons, and to what persons, is a question which invites consideration; it may serve to regulate the names given to churches.

The word saint, taken in its most extended sense, signifies a person so eminent for piety and virtue during life, as to justify a reasonable belief that after death he must have been admitted into the assembly of "the spirits of just men made perfect;" or, as our creed speaks, "the communion of saints." The Christian world, sensible of the pre-eminence of their religion both as to principle and moral practice, is apt to believe that the title of saint should only be given to persons of their own faith, and that all other systems of religion ought to be regarded with abhorrence, and to be suppressed whenever opportunity may offer. To persons of such opinion the words of the Saviour may be properly addressed: "Ye know not what spirit ye are of:" a sentence which enjoins forbearance, and prohibits persecution and the idea that salvation cannot be obtained beyond the pale of the Christian Church. If salvation be thus widely obtainable, it becomes a consequence not to be denied that the title of saint may be justly assigned to all who steadily adhere to such rules of righteousness or holiness as, upon the best evidences to them available, they conscientiously believed to be just and true. This doctrine is taught both in the Old and New Testament, for in both such texts occur as the following:k "God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him;" "God loveth the stranger in giving him food and raiment;" and, "There is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts." The Apostles and the historian of the Acts give the title of saint generally to all persons who adopted the Christian faith, upon the presumption that all such were true disciples of the Gospel, and were presumed to be in a state

Acts x. 34, 35. Deut. x. 18. 2 Chron. xix. 7. Also Comments of Jortin, Tomline, and Hales, given by Mant on Acts x.

of salvation. In very early ages, even during the life of some of the Apostles, but especially the long life of St. John the Evangelist, many heresies and schisms arose in the Church, for which many calling themselves Christians were denounced as unworthy of the privileges of a disciple of Christ, and therefore not in a state of salvation; and as such heresies and schisms were of frequent occurrence, and all were liable to be tainted with such errors, it became necessary to limit the application of the title saint to such persons only as had lived and died in the true faith. It must be almost impossible for man to decide with certainty on this point; for God only knoweth what is in man: the Church of Rome however does decide, after what it deems due enquiry, and often adjudges the title of saint to such persons as it approves; but in doing this it assumes the power of an infallible judgment; a power which the Protestant Churches conceive cannot be found in man, and on that account they forbear to give the title of saint to any one.

In this forbearance the Protestant Churches are somewhat too scrupulous. There are cases in which the title may with great propriety be conferred. It is stated in the Book of Revelation that when the Lamb had opened the fifth seal the prophetic Evangelist "saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held; and white robes were given unto every one of them."1 The souls here mentioned were the souls of such persons as had suffered martyrdom for the sake of the Gospel, and of such as had died, not being Christians, in vindication of the opinions or doctrines which they honestly and conscientiously held. They had "endured unto the end," and such the Saviour declares "shall be saved." m To all these white robes were given, the symbol of purity and of the forgiveness of sins. Such is the lot of martyrs of their salvation there can be no doubt.