More particularly, he dissents from the first Resolution,

Because the sense in which this Synod holds Christ to be the King of Nations is unwarranted by God's word, as the term; nations, both in the Old Testament and in the New, where used in connexion with Christ's kingly office, is the same with what is translated gentiles or heathen, and cannot be understood of the geographical divisions of the earth into nations or kingdoms, as the resolution supposes, but signifies the world as distinguished from the church, which even English readers, but more especially Hebrew and Greek readers, will perceive by looking at the following passages, viz. :-Jer. x. 3,7; xiv. 22; Psalms ix. 19, 20; xxii. 28; xlvii. 8; Luke xxi. 24; Acts xi. 18; Romans ix. 24; Matt. vi. 7; xviii. 17; Gal. ii. 9; Luke xii. 30; Acts xiii. 19; Rev. ii. 26.

He further dissents from this Resolution,

Because Christ is King of Nations, that is, of unconverted men, not in the same sense, and with the same design, that he is King of the Church, which is his proper kingdom; but as forming a part of his subsidiary kingdom, put in subjection to him for a time, for the good of his church; and, because, till they are brought under the influence of the gospel, the nations, in the scripture sense of the word, have neither the privilege, nor the honour, of having any service required of them, to Christ, or his church.

He dissents from the second Resolution,Because, in his opinion, the question of civil establishments, although in some sense of subordi

nate importance, is, nevertheless, one, on the scriptural decision of which depends, in a great measure, the peace, purity, progress, and final glorious destinies of the Christian church; and because the civil establishment of religion, at any period, by the magistrate, is an invasion by him on the royal prerogatives of Christ, and, at once, to involve herself in serious guilt and peril.

He dissents from the third resolution,—

Because the endowment of the church by the civil magistrate, is unscriptural, and therefore unlawful at all times; and because, in no given circumstances, can it be his duty to grant such endowment, or the church's duty to accept of it; and, because this grave question ought not to be determined on grounds of christian expediency, but entirely by the word of God.

And he dissents from the fourth resolution,—1 Because, besides all the reasons assigned for not accepting endowments in present circumstances, which reasons are, however, more or less applicable to all times, the principal reasons why endowments should now be, and should always have been rejected and repudiated by the church, are entirely overlooked, namely, that they are subver-" sive of the civil rights and liberties of men; that they have invariably proved the source of persecution for conscience sake; that they have always tended to weaken, corrupt, and degrade the church; and that they have ever been highly derogatory to the honour and glory due to Christ as the great King of Zion. ANDREW FERRIER,

Toronto, June 24, 1848.

THE IRISH REBELLION.

THE late "Act for the suppression of crime and outrage in Ireland," taking effect from the 22d July, has, as we anticipated, brought the Irish disaffection to a crisis. The proclamation authorizing the officers of law to seize all arms found in the possession of unlicensed persons, was met, on the part of the disaffected, by an attempt to seize arms possessed by the police, and others friendly to the government; while the reward offered for the apprehension of the leading insurgents, stimulated to the highest point the watchful diligence of the police and military forces. A party of the police having gone forth in search of Smith O'Brien, unexpectedly encountered him, attended by the insurgent army, at Boulagh Common, a wild region in the north of Tipperary; and having got the start of the rebels in obtaining the shelter of a house on the hill side, there the battle of repeal was fought by fifty policemen on the one side, and Brian, "king of Munster," with his patriot rabble, on the other. The encounter was decisive. Beat off, with considerable loss of life, from their attempt to fire the temporary castle of the police, the assailants retired, broken and routed; and have never since been able to muster. The events that follow are of a piece with this truly Irish picture of a national army "surrounded"

and demolished by fifty policemen, O'Brien, dispirited by the cowardice of his followers, could trust himself no longer at their head in an encounter with the Queen's forces. After wandering among the Keeper Mountains for days and nights together without the shelter of a roof, for with a degree of magnanimity he refused to involve the inhabitants in the penalties they would have incurred by sheltering a proclaimed traitor, he came forth from his concealment, and not unintentionally, as it is believed, put himself in the way of apprehension. He, and a number more of the leading conspirators, now lie in the Dublin prisons waiting their trial.

It would be idle to imagine that the triumph of law and order for the present, has in any degree allayed the discontent of: the Irish people. Their smouldering enmity against English rule is as hot as ever, and is only aggravated, in most instances, by the idea that the rising was premature. The inhabitants in the centre of the disturbed districts refused to sell provisions to her Majesty's troops. Many blame the priests for holding back from the insurrection, and affirm that but for their coldness the attempt must have succeeded. The fact, we doubt not, would be more correctly stated in the other way. The priests were cold because they saw the attempt would be unsuccessful, or at least doubted that it would

turn out as it has done. They were not lukewarm all along. Like the deceased Archbishop of Paris, whom the Romanists would raise to the honours of a martyr for social order, they knew the time to take their side, came forth and counselled submission when it was plain the government was to gain the day. One of them, more outspoken than the rest, warns the government not to dream that the priests disapprove of the insurrection for any other reason than that at present it was a hopeless cause. Thus writes an Irish priest in a wellknown Roman Catholic print, the Tablet:

"I believe, with you, that an armed rising of the people would be the excess of madness; because I believe, with you, that comparing the manifold elements of weakness and want of preparation on our side, with the manifold elements of strength on the part of the English government, we have no chance of success. On this ground, therefore, I am vehemently opposed to an insurrection, either now or in next autumn, or in any autumn that is likely to come for many years. And on this ground, and on this ground alone, I firmly believe the great mass of the clergy are opposed to insurrection. Let not Lord John Russell and Conway of the Evening Post, lay the flattering unction to their souls,' that it is love for the government of this country, or the constitution, or the so-called laws, or respect for them, or allegiance to them, or acquiescence in them, or toleration of them, that induces us to keep our people back; but only the deep conviction that by insurrection they have nothing to gain, but every thing to lose; that they could not succeed, and that failure would only (as Brougham says) worsen their condition. Let not Russell nor Rundy Tundy Conway dare to heap on us their loathsome panegyrics; to offer us their canting, hypocritical, that is, their Whiggish thanks. They owe us neither. Their praises and themselves we scorn and and spit upon. Base Whigs, treacherous Whigs, murderous Whigs-they have deceived us, they have betrayed us, they have mocked our hopes themselves created, they have slain our people, they have ruined our country. Their very name is accursed in the hearts and mouths of seven millions in this land, and accursed for ever"

With all the success, therefore, of their late measures (and the Lord-Lieutenant, it must be owned, has acted with the promptitude and ability which the emergency demanded), the government have still to rank Ireland as their chief difficulty, and Ireland still remains the disgrace of British rule. Learning experience by the disasters of July, the leaders may refrain from open in surrection, but this will only increase their power to torment ministers into measures

Ir is admitted on all hands that something must be done for Ireland, which neither soldiers nor police can do. The govern ment, to give them their due, do not seem satisfied with having put down the rebellion at the bayonet's point, but are seriously entertaining the question, what can be done to satisfy the demands of the Irish people? The adjustment of ecclesiastical burdens seems to strike all parties as demanding attention in the foremost place; but wide, again, is the difference of opinion as to how this is to be effected. Lord John Russell, in his plan, seems to have borrowed the idea of the Irish cadger, who, to adjust the burden on his donkey's back, got a big stone on the one side to balance the eggs on the other. Our noble Premier proposes to allay the church grievance, not by cutting down the revenues of the alien and absentee clergy, or by distributing among the seven millions of Roman Catholics the wealth enjoyed by the favoured one million of Episcopalian Protestants; but by packing on a new ecclesiastical burden on the other side. And in this proposal he is backed by the Whigs as a party, perhaps by a majority of the House of Commons as presently constituted. "For my part," says he, "I believe that the Protestants of Ireland, living in a country where church establishments are acknow ledged, have a fair claim to have a church establishment of their own. And I do not believe, diminished as the property of that: church has been by the abolition of church rates, and forming about one million of the population, that there is very great excess in the amount allowed to that church Well; having a church establishment for the minority, the question arises, whether you will have by its side, another establishment for the church of the great majority. Every one must be aware of the difficulties which beset the question, in the feelings of the people of England and Scotland-which, in my opinion, ought to be no bar to the endowment of the Roman Catholic church; but there are also practical difficulties, which ought not to be encountered without seeing. that the people of Ireland generally ask for this endowment, and that it would be readi ly accepted." Here, then, is a free offeran endowment fairly sent a-begging; and though his Lordship, in the next sentence of his speech, expresses surprise and regret that the priests have shown themselves dis inclined to receive his money, it would seem, from subsequent proceedings of the

government, that they expect this coyness of the priesthood will yet be overcome. It is affirmed that the heads of the Romish party have been offered the government patronage, or a large share of it, in Ireland ; and, in the circumstances, nobody can doubt as to the quid pro quo contemplated in the proposal. Certain it is, that the government leader in the House of Lords has surprised the country by giving notice of an intention to resume and carry through, ere the session close, the measure which government a few weeks ago virtually abandoned, for entering into diplomatic relations with the Pope of Rome. What can be meant by this sudden apparition of friendship for the Papal See? What but that the power of Pius IX. is thought desirable to curb the opposition of the Irish priests in the matter of endowments-now the forlorn hope of the Whigs for Ireland.

We have not words to express our loathing of this infamous scheme to prop up the doomed Irish church. We had imagined our country was to be kept free from the guilt of those nations who, as is predicted, are to give their power unto the beast. But the Whigs seem to have determined that we shall share in the sin of these nations; and in such a case, we know, a higher power has determined we shall be partakers of their plagues. The tone of certain Roman Catholics in both houses of Parliament would lead to the belief that the bargain is already struck. Lord Beaumont and Mr Anstey, Romanists though they be, have discovered that the Irish Protestant church is no grievance whatever to the Roman Catholic millions! And the sentiment is repeated by many more of the party. Plainly, we are bought and sold by the Whigs and the Papists. And are not the terms of this paction obvious? The Romanists are to lend their shoulder in the hour of need to keep up the Irish church establishment; and, in return, the Whigs are to give the Romanists a church establishment for themselves. the selfish unprincipled compact! Let every christian elector, and every christian citizen, take means to let the British Parliament know that the country is filled with disgust and indignation at such proeeedings.

Out upon

INCOME OF AN IRISH PRIEST.

ONE of the Premier's difficulties, in regard to his pet project of endowing Popery in Ireland, is avowedly the unwillingness of the priesthood to receive the bribe. The following statement of the fees exigible by a parish priest in Ireland, will so far explain this unwillingness. The statement is by the Rev. T. W. Dixon, Protestant curate of Drogheda, and previously parish priest

Collection on Christmas day and Easter Sunday, by a rule in the parish, 6d. each time, off each house, Forty marriages, at L.1:8: 2 each One hundred and fifty baptisms, at 3s. 4d. each,

Legacies on death, average forty, at 10s. each, including the price of a mass to remove the soul from purgatory, Charge for anointing, 1s. 1d. each time -average number of times 200, Making offices for sick or deceased cattle, Is. Id. for each office-average number 150,

Private masses for private intentions, price varying,

40 0 0

100 0 0

50 0 0

40 0 0 56 6 8 20 0 0

20 0 0 10 16 8

8 2 6

15

0 0 L.405 5 10

22 15 0

2 5 6

2 5 6 256

-L.59 11 6

L.345 14 4

Leaving L.300 annually, after deducting a balance of L.45: 14:4, as a set-off against bad debts and paupers.

In the above statement I have not included the advantages of living at the charge of the parishioners, who are obliged to feed the priest, and his borse, and his servant, and that in the most expensive manner.

THOMAS WILLIAM DIXON, Curate of St Peter's, Drogheda

"In reference to the foregoing," says Mr Hogan, ex-popish priest in the United States, "I would merely say, if such sums are realized in the wildest districts of the country, what must they be in the more cultivated and better inhabited parts? In a small town, about six miles from Dublin, the receipts of the parish priest have been calculated at between L.800 and L.900 per annum." With an income so liberal, in a country where living is cheap, and the more burdensome taxes of England and Scotland are unknown, the priest can have but little pecuniary inducement to sell his independence, as well as peril his influence with the people, by accepting the proffered mess of government pottage.

POPISH NUNNERIES.

A CASE of considerable interest, as bearing on the powers and privileges of popish convents in this protestant country, has just been decided by the House of Lords, in appeal from the Irish Court of Chancery. Mr M'Carthy of Cork, a gentleman possessing L.100,000, besides landed property, entered in 1828 his daughter Maria, and in 1829 his daughter Catherine, as sisters of the Black Rock Nunnery, county Cork, paying L.1000 as entrance-money for each. According to the rules of the house, L.800 should, in such a case, secure for an entrant a maintenance for life. It was understood by the family at the time, including the young ladies, and it was clearly expressed in two separate drafts of a will by the father, that, in virtue of this payment to the institution, the young nuns renounced all claim on the family property. In 1843 the father died, the will never having been legally executed; and the heir-at-law divided the personal estate among the children, exclusive of the nuns, as having been already provided for. The nuns were ready to concur formally in this distribution, as a following out of their former agreement; but the superiors of the convent, to whom they had, at entering, made over all their property and vowed obedience, determined they should prosecute for their full share. By dint of threatening and punishment, they induced one of the nuns to join in this suit, though both had previously intimated to the family their concurrence in the terms of the unexecuted will, and their unwillingness to disturb it. On the case coming up before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, it was pled by the family in defence, that the deed, assigning to the convent the nun's right, had been signed under the constraint of their vow of obedience, and was therefore invalidated. His lordship sustained this plea; but allowed the pursuers the issue of a jury, to determine, on evidence, whether undue constraint had been used. The pursuers, declining to abide this issue, appealed to the Imperial Chancery.

It is to be regretted that an informality in this case, though it tells on what we believe to be the side of justice, has prevented any decision declaring the state of the law as to the real merits of the question. Their lordships decided that the claim, as presented jointly by the heads of the convent as assignees, and the nun as assigner, could not be sustained, because the joint claimants had opposite interests. If the assigner's claim was good, the assignees' was null, and vice versa. On this preliminary ground the appeal was dismissed, with costs. This peep into a popish nunnery will be

useful to the country at the present day. The grasping rapacity of the conventual anthorities; the blind obedience they demand; the tyranny employed to secure it; their reckless disregard of the peace of families, and of the most sacred feelings of honour and honesty-if these stand in the way of their avarice-are strongly brought into view, and teach a lesson of warning. The law of the land as to the merits of the M'Carthy case was, we have no doubt, correctly, though prematurely, declared, in the decision of the Irish Chanceller. People may give their money to whom they choose, if they give it of their own accord; but surely it is the province of law to defend the subject against intimidation and violence, whether they be offered on the highway or in the cloister.

CHURCH SITES BILL FOR SCOTLAND.

WE have felt reluctant to canvass this measure during its discussion in Parliament. That the exercise of the right of property should be, in some way or other, restrained to the extent of hindering a landlord from cancelling the law of toleration and the right of free religious worship in a populous island, or an extensive district of country, was plain enough to a mind having any sense of justice. But we could not rid ourselves of a doubt, that some of the promoters of this bill were prompted by no sense of even-handed justice in the matter, but by a feeling of partisanship for their own denomination, whose importance would have been magnified at the expense of others by the concession of their claim. Our doubts have not been removed by the closing scene in the history of this bill. An attempt was made in committee to limit its provisions and privileges to the Free Church of Scotland; but the attempt was lost, and it came to the third reading with a liberal and comprehensive aspect. On this ground, however, it forfeited favour with some of its previous supporters, and on the third reading was thrown out. The Lord Advocate, a leading supporter of the Free Church, "intended to vote against the third reading of this bill, because it was a general, and not an exceptional measure. To say that justice might be done by leaving parties to prosecute their remedy by private acts of Parliament, was a mere mockery of justice; but when, instead of making it applicable to one denomination, the measure was extended to all, he must object to it." Aut Cæsar aut nihil, says the Lord Advocate for the Free Church. Rather than have a rival near his throne, he will have no throne at all. Sir James Graham has borne, hitherto, the brunt of the odium incurred by the Commons for their opposition to this bill. Surely he has