felt, and spake on this occasion? That he applied in judging of the working and effects of the national establishment, the sentiments entertained by evangelical Christians so called, whether in the Anglican church or in other communions, as to those scriptural doctrines and that personal piety, in their view, alone available to salvation? Had the politician, the sectarian, the enemy of religion given in his verdict on this great inquest, whatever had been deplored, whatever had been condemned, the loss or the jeopardy of souls, would have moved neither the sorrow nor the anger of the speaker. It is precisely in this view that the vehement condemnation of Mr. Binney by evangelical churchmen is astounding and inconsistent. They might have been supposed to be prepared to understand on what grounds this painful conclusion rested, and to sympathize in the views that conducted to it. With respect to formal churchmen and advocates of baptismal regeneration, that it should fill them with equal surprise and indignation, was quite natural. Acquiescing with as little doubt as consideration in the offices of their church, which declare baptismal regeneration at the font, teach it in the catechism, assume it at confirmation, proceed on the assumption in the communion, at the altar, the visitation of the sick, and the burial of the dead-never supposing for a moment that any doctrines are taught from established pulpits inadequate or ill-adapted to promote the salvation of men-their surprise at Mr. Binney's doctrine was at least unaffected; their indignation consistent-violence was indeed done to all their habits of thought. A conclusion was announced, the process for arriving at which they could not at all imagine. But for evangelical churchmen who are understood entirely to sympathize in all the theological sentiments and views on personal religion entertained by Mr. Binney; whose opinions of the preaching of the vast majority of their brother clergymen, and of its tendencies, had been for so many years publicly declared in every way by which the sentiments of any body of men can be made known with authority and certainty-for them to express surprise at the thought of souls perishing in the establishment or through its action and influence, or in greater numbers than it is effectual to save-this was surprising. But we anticipate.

Let us now introduce on the scene "JOHN SEARCH." After Mr. Binney had endured for nearly four years an unintermitting storm of abuse with scarcely a word of sympathy, to say nothing of defence, published on his behalf, except a passing remark, equally just and kind, from the pen of Dr. J. P. Smith, in his controversy with Professor Lee-John Search stepped in between him and his evangelical assailants. To the other revilers of Mr. Binney whether at Oxford, or Fulham, or Pudsey, John Search had nothing to say. They were consistent, and straightforward. They held no sentiments in common with Mr. Binney; they had made no declarations similar to his, or stronger and more stringent-on which to found a claim to their sympathy, or least to their forbearance and silence. But the evangelical opponents of Mr. Binney were altogether in another position. They were condemning in him the sentiments and declarations that had been long current among themselves. If his

opinions were erroneous, his language unjustifiable, so were their own. The admirable, conclusive pamphlet of John Search is therefore altogether an "argumentum ad homines,"-an appeal to tain parties founded solely on their oft-avowed opinions, entitled "WHAT? AND WHO SAYS IT? This pungent inquiry ascertains, to the utter discomfiture of the parties addressed, both what has been said, and by whom. In a word, the compiler makes it clear to demonstration that zealous advocates of establishments of the evangelical school, such as Dr. Chalmers, the Rev. S. C. Wilks, the Record, the Christian Observer, and last not least, John Wesley, have affirmed concerning the theology taught in the pulpits of the English hierarchy to a fearful extent and for a long period; concerning the almost universal use or rather abuse of patronage, to introduce into her ministry the most incompetent and irreligious clergymen, and to exclude from preferment and influence every one known or suspected as evangelical; concerning the baptismal and other offices of the church, and the dogmas of apostolic succession and sacramental efficacy-what must prove to every impartial mind, that in the judgment of these distinguished and foremost advocates of the power of the state in affairs ecclesiastical, the entire working of the Anglican church, as established, and as therefore open to, and acted upon, by political, secular influences, has long been extensively injurious, disastrous, fatal to the purity of the christian religion as embodied in this state institution; and to all the holy and saving purposes for which the gospel was intended by its Divine Author. All that Mr. Binney has said, evangelical churchmen have also said. They have said more than he. The Anglican church lies under far heavier rebukes and condemnation from its friends than from its opponents. This John Search clearly shows. To make this appear is his sole object. He meddles not with the truth or falsehood of what has been said, but only with the fact that it has been said. He finds evangelical churchmen condemning Mr. Binney with the utmost vehemence and asperity, for sorrowfully expressing his painful conviction that the establishment destroys more souls than it saves; and reminds them, "Gentlemen, you have said the same thing your selves-said more than this-said it in a more personal, offensive manner said it for a long time and in various ways-it has been your frequent theme-surely you have forgotten your own sentiments, your own declarations. Either Mr. Binney is right, or you are equally wrong; he is innocent, or you are equally criminal. If Mr. Binney must be reproved leave him to those who can consistently condemn and rebuke his fault; but let not your hands be upon him, which have equally, which have more offended than his. Let a sense of justice, of consistency, impose on you a modest silence. Look on this sentence, and on that. The one is your's, the other Mr. Binney's. Both may be true, or both false, but they are both alike. If there be indeed a difference, your own is the more severe. Yet you vehemently condemn another for the very fault of which yourselves are more guilty than he."

Thus appealed to, and pressed, it is to be presumed that the evangelical assailants of Mr. Binney, hastened to the necessary work of

their own vindication. Here was every thing to arouse the sense of honour, the value for character, the regard for consistency, native to upright, ingenuous minds. To be sure the parties were reduced by the quiet, dogged, accurate statements and quotations of John Search, into great difficulties and straits. Had he defended Mr. Binney, or strayed into general reasonings, or offered any opinion on the merits of the controversy, he would have been a manageable antagonist, he would have given scope for new displays of zeal, indignation, and every other appropriate proof of especial and eminent fidelity to our venerable and apostolical church. But when he appears as a mere witness; states exactly in their own words what each party has advanced; finds it needless even to remark that the several declarations are exactly to the same effect, for the quotations themselves say that; leaves the parties to deal with their own inconsistency thus exposed, in the best manner they can-this is indeed a stringent method of procedure, very unusual, not to be trifled with, or easily evaded. It could not be replied, "We churchmen never said such things of our church," for there they are in your own words. It could not be alleged "they have not the same meaning as Mr. Binney's declaration," for unfortunately the writers had been so anxious, and so successful too, to make their complaints against their church clear, and strong, and sure, that there is no denying or explaining away their meaning. It was too much to expect from warm partizans, however honest, however in the main excellent men, that they should say, "we retract, we have done Mr. Binney wrong," or "we have altered our opinions on the working of our church; we now see that patronage, false doctrine, baptismal regeneration, apostolical succession, sacramental efficacy, indiscriminate church fellowship, have not in our establishment the fatal effects we once thought they had; we condemn Mr. Binney's uncharitable declaration, and with it we also condemn our own similar or stronger expressions." Still something must be done. "We cannot remain silent under such imputations and appeals as these of JOHN SEARCH." Then some convenient distinctions, some ingenious explanations would surely have presented themselves to sagacity sharpened by long practice in polemics, and now pressed and roused by sore necessity, so that the combat might have been ended with enough of sound and dust to preserve fair appearances with partial friends at least, willing to believe the best, reluctant to know the truth. Gentle reader, not a word of all this, not a syllable! To this day not a sentence, not a word has escaped from the parties thus by John Search confronted with Mr. Binney, on the real, the only point and intention of his pamphlet. They have never touched it. They have never betrayed the slightest consciousness that such an appeal was ever addressed to them. They still rail on Mr. Binney, as if John Search had never written; as if their own similar declarations had never been made, or had never been noticed, exposed, and placed in comparison with the "celebrated sentence," and found the worse of the two. The reader may say with surprise, Is this possible? It is fact. Has neither shame nor fear moved them? Not in the least. John Search's argument,

quotations, comparisons remain totally unmentioned by those whom they most concern. Such a circumstance may be without a parallel, but then this is an unparalleled affair altogether. We believe, indeed, these evangelical champions of the hierarchy are, in respect of this affair, quite safe, as far as their own particular party in the establishment is concerned. There is little reason to fear that either their prejudices will be disturbed, or their ignorance of the true state of the controversy in question, removed. It may be different with another party. The Bishop of London, and men of his class may come to know more than is convenient for evangelical clergymen, how they think and write of their church and their brethren; and though there may be good reasons why such things should now pass unnoticed, the knowledge and remembrance of them may be stored up for future occasions.

Then of course the existence of the pamphlet of "JOHN SEARCH," is never alluded to by the organs of the evangelical party in the church, as they never meet or even mention the only point it was written to bring out and press. Gentle reader, thou art simple; unpracticed in the arts not of the world, but of the church; unskilful in the right and approved methods of managing such affairs as this, if such a thought rises in thy guiltless mind. John Search's pamphlet not mentioned, because its argument is concealed or unnoticed! Yes indeed, mentioned and abused too. John Search is only not quite so bad as Mr. Binney. He is scurrilous and deceptive. His title page professes to expound Mr. Binney's hateful saying by quotations from Dr. Chalmers, the Rev. S. C. Wilks, and other able evangelical champions of the church; and simple laics, aye, and clerics too, of these opinions, thinking that to expound in such a connection must be meant to confute-have purchased the book, commended its perusal, and finding to their surprise and dismay that these writers are made by fair quotations from their works to sustain Mr. Binney-they have hurried back to the bookseller to be rid of the wretched pamphlet, and to recover their ill-expended money!

But we are arrived at another point in this strange affair. The morality, the immorality of controversy! The virtue, the love of truth, the manliness, the integrity of party! Oh, that these terms, thus used, should be either falsehood or satire! "STRIKE, BUT HEAR," and the "LAST WORDS OF JOHN SEARCH," make painful, but salutary disclosures on these subjects. We commend these pieces to the thoughtful, the sorrowful perusal of all our readers. Indeed, the whole series of productions on all sides, in connexion with Mr. Binney's " sentence," should be read for their moral. It is a subject not to be trifled with if we value a christian temper, controversial uprightness, and sound and just morals. The whole should be read for instruction, humiliation, warning. Happy they who can thus employ what to most is but the occasion of anger, or triumph, or levity! As for the heat and violence of controversy, greatly as it is to be deplored, it may be but the unguarded excess of honest zeal. Its bitterness, acrimony, personalities, which are far more serious evils, may admit of some apology as springing from real or supposed provocation. But the DISHONESTY of CONTRO-.

VERSY, the immorality of PARTY, who will be the apologist, what can be the excuse for these deadly evils? To garble quotations, to misrepresent arguments, to defame opponents, to employ reasonings felt to be unsound, to withhold concession known to be due, to trample on the rights of truth in serving the interests of party, these are the daily abominations of the controversies and struggles of party, and are perhaps, of all the evils incident to liberty, the most to be deplored by the virtuous and the wise. They have been but too abundantly displayed in the affair now under review. We had intended to extract from the pamphlets of JOHN SEARCH, and to set out in all due formality of parallel columns, the case as he states it, between himself and the Christian Observer, that most grievously changed and degenerate publication. But we have not space, for the whole must be exhibited or the affair could not be understood; it is not necessary to our object, which is more to record our own sentiments, than to exhibit those of the writers in this controversy; and we are most anxious that all our readers should peruse with care, and we will add with prayer too, all the publications connected with it. It is no less than affecting to see exhibited side by side, Mr. Binney's celebrated declaration as he guarded and limited it, and put into it the tones of pathos and grief; and as it is garbled, mutilated, altered by the Christian Observer to make it the fitter occasion for bitter reviling; to see in one column what Mr. Binney says of the Church establishment, and in the opposite, what the Christian Observer says of dissent, in whose view it would seem that far severer language against Dissenters is virtue, than that which against the Church is vice; to ponder in the same convenient form for comparison, the language of Mr. Binney on the evils of the establishment, and over against it that of the Christian Observer and its coadjutors far the more sweeping, condemnatory, and severe, while its acthors, not with complacency merely, but with indignation, rebuke in their brother their own offence; to see this case put to these parties calmly, clearly, closely, and the challenge given to meet it, with every circumstance likely to move and rouse men of spirit and conscious of right to speak in their own defence, completely evaded by a false and dashing reference to a "Dissenting Minister who writes a violent antichurch pamphlet, with a deceptive title, under the signature of John Search ;" these things do make us angry while we write, but there is sorrow enough mingled with our anger to preserve it, we hope, from becoming either injurious to ourselves, or offensive to others.

But we have done. The pamphlets of JOHN SEARCH, whoever may be their author, are written with great ability. They are the productions of a vigorous, shrewd, and penetrating mind. WHAT? AND WHO SAYS IT? is calm, and the argument is put as a mere affair of evidence and fact, which it really is. In "STRIKE, BUT HEAR," the writer is moved to earnestness and some warmth, by a sense of the unworthy conduct of his antagonists, and by an honest zeal for manliness and honour. In his last words, JOHN SEARCH is indignant and disappointed; he renounces the better hopes he had once entertained of the Episcopal