Surely G. V. will not deny this property to articles of which it is to be supposed he often partakes, viz., roast beef and plum pudding? For ourselves, to our cost have we often regretted the excessive stimulating qualities of viands in which we have been tempted to indulge above measure. But perhaps he may fall back on the quibble, that these are natural stimulants, and he refers to artificial ones. Granted: but is not medicine in all its forms a stimulant, and an artificial one too, whether it be administered Allopathically or Homœopathically? And it is useless to allege the excuse, that given on the former principle it is much more injurious than on the latter, on account of the increased quantity of the dose; because, according to their own showing, it is the very minuteness of the Homœopathic globules which constitutes their efficiency; ergo, the reckless manner in which we administer our remedies is a sure safeguard against any ill effects accruing from them. If medicine be discarded, what, we should like to know, are the innumerable tinctures, powders, &c., which are comprehended in their pharmacopoeia? Non-stimulating aliment, we suppose! "Man was ordained by nature to suffer," (we very much doubt it,) therefore Homœopathy "was designed to free him from all those sufferings to which his own folly and superstition have hitherto made him a martyr." If ignorance had been the original sin, our first parents would, in all probability, never have been expelled paradise; but, unfortunately for our writer, Adam sinned, not through a deficiency of knowledge, but from an unholy thirst for more. what may be deemed their hereditary caste. Ah, gentlemen! take a friend's advice; show your true colours; enlist yourselves with the Hydropathists and Vegetarians, and you will stand a much better chance of succeeding than you do at present. We had intended to draw our readers' attention to the fallacy, that "Homœopathy will in no case do positive injury;" but it has been so well handled by the writer of the last negative article on the subject—whose paper, by the way, is to our mind a carefullywritten digest of most of the facts connected with the case-t -that we do not feel it necessary to do so. Our opponents are very fond of insisting on showing their hospital books, and other such-like testimonies to the number of their cures, as a proof of the successfulness of their plan of treatment. But there is one thing which must never be lost sight of (laying aside the fact that the nature of the organism to be acted on, the varied character of the symptoms of a disease, the purity of the medicines, which in no case can be absolutely guaranteed, together with other collateral circumstances, render any inquiry of this kind so complicated as to make it of little or no practical value), that the tendency of most acute diseases, the class more likely than any other to come under inspection at Homoeopathic hospitals, is to recover. sides, post hoc is not necessarily propter hoc; if it were, what marvellous effects might not in justice be attributed to agents which we know possess of themselves no intrinsic value, but only so far as they help to bring about a combination of favourable conditions. Be So, after all, the real prop of the Homœop- G. V. lays great stress upon the imporathists seems to be that they pay especial tance of Homoeopathic medicines as specifics. attention to the diet of their patients. We do We need hardly call the attention of the verily believe that these globules are only a scientific reader to so palpable an error. pleasant subterfuge, under which they expect Every person knows that one rational cure is to escape from the charge of not giving their worth half-a-dozen empirical ones. What is patients any medicine at all. They have at a specific but an agent empirically used to last arrived at the great secret, that the produce an effect, which, up to the time of so repair of nature's organism must, to a con- using, it has been more or less successful in siderable extent, be left to nature herself: producing? But how can we ensure its sucbut, unwilling to abandon that superstitious cess in this, it may be the hundredth time of enthralment in which a medical man holds employing? True, it has been successful in the majority of his patients, the immense ninety-nine cases, but may it not fail in the influence which he exerts over their minds last? In this it differs from rational medicines, by the mere prescription of anything in the that the latter are uniformly constant in their shape of physic, they have resorted to this- action and certain in their effects. The word we must say unworthy-plan of preserving | is a remnant of bygone days, and recals the darkness of the early dawn of our profession; | mœopathy. Like other writers whose wit bat who would not wish to see it expunged outruns their wisdom, he has been led into from the medical glossary? There is no deny- an error which we will venture to say the ing that we have specifics even now, and that veriest tyro in such matters could not avoid we use them as such; but it is only a proof of discovering. We know, and the public know how far we yet are from a perfect insight too-at least it ought to know, only it shuts into the working of nature's machinery. its eyes blindly to the fact that under the When the qualities and action of therapeutic old system, and too often under the improved agents shall have been more thoroughly in- state of things, medicine is sent and charged vestigated, then may we hope to see some for which is not absolutely necessary. This light shed upon a subject, where, as yet, every has been, and will be, until affairs are better additional footstep only leads to a more in- managed, the opprobrium of the profession. extricable confusion. Till then we must But can people grumble at a practice which remain content; but let us not invite back they alone are instrumental in retaining? the genius of bygone superstitions, by re. If they will not pay a medical man for his introducing terms which are only expressive time, which is inestimably precious, for his of her former reign amongst us. health, which is equally so, and for an expensive education, can they complain if the fee which is so fairly due for professional advice, is grudgingly extorted by means of unprofessional bills for unnecessary items? The lawyer, and all other servants of the public, charge for their time, and why should not the medical man do so as well? He must be paid, and if John Bull will not loose his purse strings to the claims of a gentleman, he must "come down," and to the cost of his wretched stomach too, with his gold to the debtor and creditor account of the tradesman for "value received." When the English public shall have been imbued with a more liberal spirit, and shall have learned to treat with becoming confidence men who hold, not the political rights, but the lives of its members, in their hands, then, and not till then, will the bond be severed, and one long peace arise, to the emancipation of the physician from the trammels of the apothecary, and the surgeon's scalpel from the druggist's mortar. VINCLUM. As to that display of grandiloquence with which G. V. finishes up, it is worth nothing; not absolutely worth the pen, ink, and brains which have been squandered on its production. It is worse than worthless, for it levels its writer to the grade of those penny-aliners who dignify, by similar compositions, the Pantechnetheca or the Eureka shirt. If G. V. really wishes to advance Homeopathy, or any other pet system, we would advise him to enunciate propositions which have something more tangible about them, than such as the most wretched caterer for Eiterary tradesmen could rival, if not surpass. We had intended to have alluded to many more perversions of truth which, “thick as leaves in Vallombrosa," are plentifully woven mid our opponents' arguments: but lack of time, and worse still, want of space, authoritatively forbid our entering further upon the subject. With one more reference we must conclude, and it is to the uncharitable sentence in which C. W., Jun., charges us with a mercenary motive in rejecting Ho Pursuit in Life.—No life can be happy, but that which is spent in the prosecution of some purpose to which our powers are equal, and which we, therefore, prosecute with success; for this reason it is absurd to dread business, upon pretence that it will leave few intervals for pleasure. Business is that by which industry pursues its purpose, and the parpose of industry is seldom disappointed; he who endeavours to arrive at a certain point, which he perceives himself perpetually to approach, enjoys all the happiness which nature has allotted to those hours, that are not spent in the immediate gratification of appetites by which our own wants are indicated, or of affections by which we are prompted to supply the wants of others. Bistory. CAN THE APOSTOLIC ORIGIN AND NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE BRITISH CHURCH BE PROVED? NEGATIVE REPLY.-III. So long as such a proceeding as that lately enacted at Frome can be tolerated in the English Church, and so long as the English bishops usurp all power in our church, so long must we contend that she is far less apostolic than the majority of the sects. The simple criterion of the apostolic character of any church is not profane history, but the word of God; and so long as any church countenances, by her usage and her laws, customs at variance with the New Testament, it is futile for her members to arrogate for her the proud title of the one apostolic church. IN availing myself of the right of replying | England is apostolic in her constitution, her in this discussion, I must express myself at forms and her ceremonies, and that she a loss to find matter to fill a page, inasmuch approves of nothing but what the apostles as our friend, J. B., has left me little or themselves taught and sanctioned, then, and nothing to refute. He has adduced no argu- not till then, shall we be inclined to allow ment or proof to show that the present that he has made out a case which in any Church of England is constructed after the degree militates against the arguments which apostolic model; but has simply contented have been already advanced. himself with bringing forward certain very unsatisfactory statements, said to have been written by certain fathers in the second and following centuries. And what would those statements prove, if admitted as satisfactory evidence in this discussion? Why, simply this that some of the apostles did preach in Britain-a fact that requires much more proof than J. B. has been able to produce, before it can be believed by an inquiring mind. But, for the sake of argument, let us admit that J. B. has shown that St. Paul or some other apostle did preach in Britain; of what use is such an admission in determining that the present Church of England is more apostolic than her compeers in this realm? Merely the fact of an apostle having preached in England, can be no warrant for our supposing that the arrogant claims of the Anglican bishops, and the would-be-called Anglican priests, are derived by descent from the apostles. Such an idea is too preposterous to be entertained, and J. B. has studiously avoided putting it forward. Why, then, try to dazzle our minds with long statements about the bare probability that an apostle did honour this island with his presence? Did our friend wish to draw us away from facts, to amaze us with religious fictions? Let him show us that the parent Church of Doubtless the Church of England holds all the doctrines the apostles taught, but, alas! some of her formularies sanction matters the apostles would have scorned to allow. And too many of her sons hold doctrines which are diametrically opposed to the truth; consequently we contend that she cannot substantiate the claim of being more apostolic than the Dissenting churches. Her freedom is the freedom of a serf; she is governed by the Queen and Parliament; and so long as she receives all her pay from the state, so long will she be under the power of the state. It remains for J. B. to prove the contrary. AFFIRMATIVE REPLY.-III. A FEW words in reply to the view taken by W. T., in anticipation of the affirmative article in No. 21, and to the letter of "Scrutator," in No. 22, will bring my remarks to a conclusion. W. T. says, "The proud claims now put forth by High Churchmen lead us to inquire, where are the proofs that the English Church is the only apostolic church in this land?" He seems, by this remark, not to be aware that the view I took in my first article is held by many Low Churchmen: in fact, to my knowledge, by several clergymen who rank high among the "champions of Protestantism." This being the case, the "High Churchmen" merit a moiety only of W. T.'s castigations. The question has no connexion whatever with "apostolic succession," and therefore I shall only make a passing remark apon what W. T. adduces in opposition. That the government of the Primitive Church was episcopal I firmly believe. Of ourse, it does not come within my present purpose to offer my grounds for that belief: nor do I see that the article of W. T. bears at all проп the fact, which I endeavoured to prove in my first article. How does it happen that, daring all the heresies and divisions in the first fourteen centuries, not one was found to deny the authority of the bishops? What can we imagine to be more likely than, when an heresiarch failed to obtain the sanction of a bishop, he should proclaim that the episcopal government was not apostolic? We do not, however, find that one did so; but, on the contrary, the utmost anxiety was shown for their concurrence in all matters. That the present state of our episcopate does not disprove the doctrine of apostolic succession, is, I think, evident. If the argument be good, what was to have prevented a Jew of the time of our blessed Lord denying the authority of the chief priests and scribes, who then bore authority in his church? The injustice and malevolence they displayed in their treatment of the Son of God-their hypocrisy ➡their practical neglect of the most positive commands of Jehovah, by demanding obedience to traditions which rendered these commands of no effect, would surely have justified a conscientious servant of the Almighty in disregarding their authority. Yet what is the language of Christ himself en this point? Matt. xxiii. 2,3. "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." The injustice of the high priest Ananias, in commanding the bystanders to smite the "great Apostle of the Gentiles" in the mouth, was surely a sufficient crime for the reproof which was administered to him. Yet St. Paul deems it necessary to make the apology that "be wist not"..."that he was the high priest." No conduct could be more in opposition to the law, or to the example of the great Lawgiver-"the meekest of men"-of their nation, than this; but, even in such an extreme case, the law," Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people," was strictly applicable. The Jewish Church was, in every respect, a type of the Christian Church. Our blessed Saviour came into this world purposely to establish the latter. "He taketh away the first," says the apostle, "that he may establish the second." He has taken away the law and the legal priesthood, that he may establish the gospel and the evangelical priesthood. The authority of the former, which was only" a shadow of good things to come," all acknowledged, and I cannot entertain the idea, reasoning from analogy, that the christian priesthood was to be less privileged. Will W. T., then, affirm that because our bishops are not so many "lowly men," that the church is not apostolic? It would not be difficult" to point out the fallacy" of W. T.'s argument with reference to the independence of our church; but he will have learned, since his article appeared, that he misunderstood the meaning of the term as I used it. We next proceed to notice "Scrutator's" article. He finds fault at the onset with our witnesses, and calls exactly similar testimony to his aid. I shall not be deemed presumptuous by your readers, if I direct their attention to the works of Inett, Stillingfleet, Barrow, Mason, Beveridge, Lloyd, Hales, Owen, and Burgess, for the purpose of examining this important part of our early church history; and I think they will find in them the following position established, viz., that the arguments in favour of the preaching of St. Paul in Britain are so strong, as not to admit of a doubt in the minds of those who have duly studied the question, aided by the researches of the Welsh archeologists; whilst the claims in favour of Joseph of Arimathea and Aristobulus, as advanced by Cressy and others, are now generally deemed unworthy of notice. With reference to Joseph of Arimathea, we may mention that Bishop Stillingfleet, in his "Origines Britannica," chap. i., has ably examined all the circumstances connected with tradition, and has satisfactorily proved the improbability of his mission to this country at all. No mention is made of it by Gildas, Bede, Asserius, | nised as a portion of the great christian When speaking of St. Paul's visit to Spain, "Scrutator" says, "But is our friend not aware that it has been a disputed point with bible students, as to whether the country there referred to is the same as the one known to us by that name?" I must confess my ignorance, and feel proud that in doing so I agree with such men as Dr. Adam Clark, Dr. M'Knight, and others: in fact, there seems to be no doubt in the minds of our best commentators on this point. "Scrutator" directs my attention to the Triades. I have before me a book on the British Church, written by a Welsh clergyman, a thorough Welsh scholar, who maintains the same view as I have put forth. He often mentions the Triades, but still believes in the apostolic origin of the British Church. It is highly probable that Brân invited St. Paul to visit Britain (he being his contemporary prisoner at Rome), and that he afterwards consecrated Aristobulus a bishop for the Britons. "Scrutator" will know, ere this, that the superstructure I have reared on the carefully laid foundation does not contain, because it was unnecessary, what he ironically calls a "holy thing." My only object was to put forward, in a tangible shape, what I had been led to believe, after long and careful study. I will just close the question by briefly recapitulating the chief points I wish to impress on the minds of those who have read my articles in Nos. 21 and 22. The church in our favoured island was planted by St. Paul, shortly before A.D. 61. That she flourished in the second and third centuries. "In the fourth century some of her faithful children received the crown of martyrdom, during the Diocletian persecution; and, on the accession of Constantine to the throne of the Cæsars, we find her recog subscribing their decrees and canons. In the fifth century, owing to the sanguinary devastation of Britain, first by the Picts and Scots, and subsequently by the Saxons, the church for a time became partially obscured, and shrunk before her enemies within the remote fastnesses of Wales and Cornwall." Augustin, on his arrival, found a christian church, possessing, as we do at present, an apostolical priesthood. The bishops and clergy would not acknowledge his authority, for which some 1,200 priests and monks were cruelly murdered. At the Council of Frankfort, A.D. 794, the Pope's commands were rejected. The British Church lived during the 200 years of Danish invasion. Edward the Confessor resisted the Pope's claims. William I. and II. protested against the Papal power with natural sternness; Henry I. with intelligence and firmness. In fact, there is no period of our history when the Papal jurisdiction existed as a right. Occasionally some sovereign or prelate, bolder or more learned than his fellows, would resist this usurpation: among these champions we find Robert Groslête, bishop of Lincoln, and John Wickliffe. The Statute of Pramunire, A.D. 1393, gave the Church of Rome in this land a fatal blow, from which it never recovered. The victory at Bosworth Field placed the house of Tudor on the British throne, and before that house was displaced, bad as some of its sovereigns were, the Reformation was carried on and completed. My reply is finished. The reader who ponders the subject will see some of the conclusive evidence which early authentic records afford us of the apostolic origin, the orthodoxy, the vigour, the independence, and we may add the primitive virtual, indeed literal, Protestantism of the church of our forefathers, the church still of the "British Isles." J. B. NEUTRAL ARTICLE. ANOTHER element can be introduced in | Church should have been so little alluded to! the discussion of this subject, which for want of a truer term we may perhaps call Neutral. Strange it is, that in this discussion the existence of the ancient British Culdee Let me first, then, give its history, from which afterwards we may derive some views bearing upon the question in debate. Whoever may have been the first individual promulgators of Christianity in our |