Observer, Nov. 1, 71. times which are no longer potent, their traditional glory must fade away before the ever fresh and living splendors of the banner of the Cross. 4. The Transcendental. We know not how better to characterize a plea which, ignoring all the experience of the past, on a priori reasonings concerning the genius and spirit of Christianity would treat the letter and the ordinances of the Gospel as mere scaffolding which has served its purpose, and had better be removed, leaving an ideal Christianity in which each soul may revel in its own dreams and claim brotherhood with all, who have been delivered from the bondage of the letter and reached the seventh heaven of idealism. It is useless to look for solid practical results here. As a reaction from creed bondage and ritualism, it may be respected; but were there solid merit in the plea, it is entirely too transcendental to influence the mass of mankind. Divine wisdom saw the need of the letter and of ordinances as channels of grace to men in the flesh, and has given us no intimations of a stage of progress in which they can be dispensed with. Human nature is to-day what it was eighteen hundred years ago, and needs the same Gospel, ordinances and all. Human wisdom cannot be dishonoured in accepting what divine wisdom has ordained. Our plea for union differs from all these. It knows nothing of human policy or human invention. It simply proposes to go back to Christianity as taught in the New Testament, and accept it as it is, "in letter and in spirit, in principle and in practice." It regards all Protestant movements as more or less successful attempts to escape from the great apostacy of Romanism, but all of them parti and incomplete. Sympathizing with every step of reformation and appropriating all of wisdom and practical good furnished in the history of these various movements, we still insist that in escaping from Babylon they have all stopped short of Jerusalem, and that there is crying need for further reformation. We repudiate all attempts to incorporate the Christianity of the New Testament with the forms and polity of any existing sect, and insist that names, phrases, creeds, doctrines, ordinances, and politics, not found in the New Testament, shall be abandoned, and that nothing shall be regarded as a bond of union or test of fellowship that is not found clearly and unmistakably in the New Testament in express precept or approved precedent. We propose union in Christ, on Christ's own teachings. Coming to the New Testament, we find- 1. Christ Jesus, the Saviour, the Son of God, is himself the centre of life, of faith, of hope; and the faith the Gospel requires is trust in a Divine person, and not assent to doctrinal speculations. 2. Faith in the Christ, the Son of God, the sole requirement in order to admission, through baptism, to the fellowship of saints: a faith which reposes on Christ for salvation, and turns the heart from sin to the service of God. 3. The immersion of all such believers, by the authority of the Lord Jesus, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, for the remission of sins. 4. A brotherhood of baptized believers, constituting a royal priesthood. No hierarchy, no priestly order, no lord of the conscience this side the throne of God. In this brotherhood, such orderly arrangements for an efficient ministry in temporal and spiritual things, as would conduce to the edification of the body-namely, bishops and deacons, chosen from the people, and ordained to the work by fasting and prayer, with the laying on of hands. Observer, Nov. 1, '71 5. Obedience to the law of Christ the only test of fellowship in this community. So that the terms of union may be very briefly summed up : 1. Faith in Christ. 2. Obedience to Christ. 6. Outside of this faith and obedience, perfect liberty, restrained only by the law of love and the dictates of expediency. Where Christ leaves us free to adopt such expedients as may be needful for carrying out the objects of piety or humanity, no conscience is bound, but all are free to adopt such measures as wisdom and experience may suggest, but without attempts to compel uniformity. To place it in another form, we find— 2. 1. "One Lord"-Jesus the Christ, to whom, and to whom alone we owe the trust of our souls, and the submission of conscience and life. "One faith"-faith in this Divine Saviour-a reliance on His divine excellency and power, on His death for our sins, and resurrection for our justification. 3. "One Baptism"-an immersion into Christ, and an emersion into a new life. 4. "One body"-the Church of God, of which we become members by faith and baptism, in which all are members of Christ and of one another. No sects, no divisions, no party leaders. 5. "One Spirit "—of which all are made partakers who come into His Body, and by which they are sealed as the children of God and heirs of heaven. 6. "One Hope "-the hope of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 7. "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all," and as children of whom we are required to walk in love and preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. It will be seen that we are contending for that which is generally acknowledged among Protestants, and that union on this basis calls for no new faith, or creed, but simply for the surrender of that which is human, that we may all be "one in Christ Jesus." More anon. Christian Standard. ARE CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATE IN AMERICA? MR. T. HUGHES, M.P., writing in the Spectator, has stated some facts which, he thinks, show that America has "failed to reach the absolute separation of things secular and things holy." Dr. Joseph Thompson, a Congregational Minister, of New York, has replied to his statements, by addressing to him two letters, which have appeared in the New York Independent, and as the matter is of some practical importance, we extract material passages:: "The broad principle held in the United States is that the 'civil tribunals possess no authority whatever to determine on ecclesiastical matters, or questions of heresy, or what is orthodox in matters of belief. The courts cannot interfere in Church affairs in any manner, except to correct misappropriation of trust property or funds.' "You also seem to confound the recognition of religious beliefs in some of our constitutions with the notion of an established religion. Mr. Cooley, in his treatise on 'Constitutional Limitations,' says:-'He who shall examine with care the American constitutions, will find nothing more fully or more plainly expressed than the desire of their framers to preserve and perpetuate religious liberty, and to guard against the slighest approach towards inequality of civil or political rights, based upon differences of religious belief. These constitutions have not established religious toleration merely, but religious equality.' I do not wonder, sir, at your confusion here; for upon this Observer, Nov. 1, 71. point there is much diversity among our constitutions, and it is not easy to lay down a principle which defines the relation of religion to civil affairs. There is such a thing as political ethics. You say, with force and justice, that 'a nation as well as a man, has a conscience as well as a stomach;' and, hence, you add, 'our American cousins have failed, and must fail, in the attempt to reach the absolute separation of things secular and things holy.' But this is a distinct thing from the organic separation of the State from the Church, in all their several functions, which we have reached in all these United States, and to which we mean to adhere as the settled policy of the nation. "Our colonies grew up under such various circumstances and conditions, that prior to the Revolution a diversity of usages obtained as to the relation of the Church to the State.. A study of this previous colonial history will in part explain how it is that in many of our State constitutions, to borrow Mr. Disraeli's phrase, you 'recognise some religious expression.' Some new States have followed in this particular the constitutions of the older States. This 'religious expression,' however, is often but an antiquated phrase or a dead letter. Sometimes it is simply the normal expression of what you have aptly styled the conscience of the nation. It is not the dictum of any Church, much less of a State religion. .. Nothing of this sort implies a union of Church and State, or tends in that direction. Such a formal recognition of the Supreme Being as is found in some State constitutions does not proceed from the spirit of an ecclesiastical establishment, nor does it argue a tendency toward such an establishment. Where Christian morality enters into the tissue of our legislation, this is not as related to or proceeding from a Church, but as morality, which is recognised by the conscience of the nation as necessary to the well-being of society. The right of worship, the sanctity of the oath, &c., have obtained recognition upon the same broad principle, and not through the genius of a Church establishment "In drawing this letter to a close, permit me to refer you to Buck's Ecclesiastical Law of Massachusetts,' Hoffman's Ecclesiastical Law in the State of New York,' and Cooley's 'Constitutional Limitations.' You will there find the unanimous voice of our justiciary, to the effect that 'structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference; and, on the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority.' "From a careful analysis, Mr. Cooley shows that the following things are not lawful under any of our State constitutions : "1. Any law respecting an establishment of religion. "2. Compulsory support, by taxation or otherwise, of religious instruction. "3. Compulsory attendance upon religious worship. 4. Restraints upon the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of the conscience. "5. Restraints upon the free expression of religious belief. "The agitation in New York against the support of sectarian schools by the State shows how thoroughly the people are committed to these principles. Political demagogues, courting the votes of Irish Catholics, have attempted to pervert the money of the State to sectarian uses. The abuse has gone on for some time unchecked; but, now that the people are awake to the danger of legislation in the interest of a sect, they will suppress the mischief as readily as they suppressed the Roman Catholic mob in New York, on the 12th of last July. "You may be assured that in these United States, and in each and every one of them, State and Church have been finally and for ever divorced." REMARKS. Let us hope that the concluding paragraph will be perfectly realized. Still there is danger. In January, 1870, the Union League Club, of New York, issued a startling circular, headed " Abstraction of Moneys from the Public Treasury for Sectarian Uses." It refers to New York alone and shows that in 1869, the sum of five hundred and twenty-eight thousand dollars was voted for sectarian purposes: which, says the League, "is the entering wedge of a determined effort to destroy our system of free common schools, and upon its ruins to build up a State Church and put the whole subject Observer, Nov. 1, 71. of education under the control of religious sects." The appropriation for sectarian purposes in 1869 were :— Now in these figures we behold a Church rate levied in New York, chiefly in the interest of the Roman Catholic Church. Dr. Thompson bids us be certain that now the people are awake to the danger, they will suppress the mischief. Well, if we cannot feel quite certain, let us hope that they will. The most disgraceful feature in the whole affair is that certain Baptists are found willing to sell themselves and play into the hands of the Romanists for the miserable sum of soine two thousand dollars. ED. NATURAL HISTORY AND THE BIBLE. THERE is no fable in the Bible. Unlike the legends of Greece and Rome, it peoples no primeval world with centaurs, and griffins, and satyrs, but speaks of animals and plants as they are now, or as research proves they existed in historic times. But what, it may be asked, are there no unicorns, and leviathans, and satyrs spoken of by psalmist and prophet? Let us see what these mean, and we shall find them very historical and substantial animals. It was no dream of a fabled unicorn, no vague report of some strange rhinoceros brought home by a Phoenician adventurer, that supplied the imagery of the Chaldean prophet, and of Israel's lawgiver, or suggested the majestic challenge: "Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow, or will he harrow the valleys after thee?" Sheets of speculative criticism have been written on the question, What is the unicorn, re'em of the Hebrew, povorkeрws of the Septuagint so frequently mentioned in the Old Testament ? It is unfortunate that our translators adopted the rendering of the "unicorn;" for re'em is no fabled monster, but a twohorned reality, a beast which once roamed freely through the forests and mountains of Palestine, but which is now extinct. It is, undoubtedly, none other than the great wild bull of yore, the 'urus' described by Cæsar, as seen by him in the Hercynian forest, when he first penetrated into the recesses of Germany; and the capture of which was considered the greatest feat of heroism which could be achieved by the German youth, so formidable was this great beast. Cæsar, with some slight exaggeration, describes it as but little inferior to the elephant in size. The name he gives it, urus, is manifestly a corruption of the German auerochs, i.e. "ox of yore," as the Saxons would have termed it; and it is known by naturalists as bos primigenius, the largest of the various species of wild oxen which have in turn given way before the advance of man. Once, doubtless, it overran the whole of Europe, Britain included, Observer, Nov. 1, '71 as many specimens have been found in peat bogs throughout the island, and may be seen in any of our large museums. Cæsar tell us that in colour, form, and general aspect it resembled the common bull, differing only in its gigantic size. The skull is a yard in length, and the span of the horn-cores is sometimes four feet. This noble beast lingered in the North centuries after its description by Cæsar. It has been found in British tumuli on the Wiltshire downs, and perhaps gave rise to the traditionary legend of the great dun cow of Guy, Earl of Warwick. 66 But how do we identify it with the "unicorn of our version? First, the prophetic blessing of Joseph by Moses shows that it was a two-horned animal. His horns are like the horns of unicorns (where, as the margin correctly notes, the Hebrew is "of an unicorn"): with them shall he push the people together to the ends of the earth" (Deut. xxxiii. 17), i.e. the two tribes of Joseph's sons shall be like the two horns of one mighty beast. Again, Isaiah speaks of it as an animal fit for sacrifice: "The Lord hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls," (Isaiah xxxiv. 6, 7). Job evidently names it as related to beasts of burden: "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? * * * Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?" (Job xxxix. 9-12). The metaphors of Balaam and of the Psalmist show that it must have been an animal not only of prodigious strength and fierceness, but one frequently seen, and with which the Israelites were familiarly acquainted. We were enabled to clear the question of its former existence in Palestine, as a contemporary of man beyond further doubt, by the discovery of the teeth of the "auerochs' among the breccia of the flooring of limestone caverns in the Lebanon, near the mouth of the Dog river, mingled with the teeth of the red deer, elk, and ibex, and abundance of flint chippings in the mass of broken bones, the remains, in all probability, of the feasts of the primitive "Horites," or cave-men. The cavern had been searched by the Egyptian engineers for the great road made by Sesostris into Northern Syria, and the flooring of the cavern cut through, large blocks of the breccia having been rolled into the sea near the celebrated rock sculptures, where Egpptian and Assyrian invaders, in turn, have left the tablets which attest the accuracy of the Scripture records. But modern travel has proved that we need not go back to the pre-historic period for the existence of these huge quadrupeds, since the monuments of Assyria, discovered by Layard, represent it among the wild animals chased by the compeers of Ninus and Semiramis. "The wild bull, from its frequent representations in the bas-reliefs, appears to have been scarcely less formidable and noble game than the lion. The king is seen contending with it, and warriors pursue it on horseback and on foot. In the embroideries on the garments of the principal figures it is introduced in hunting scenes, and in groups, which appear to have a mythic or symbolical meaning. * * * The bull of the bas-reliefs, of Nimroud, is evidently a wild animal, which inhabited Mesopotamia or Assyria .It is distinguished from the domestic ox by marks covering the body, probably intended to denote long and shaggy hair." (Layard, Nineveh, vol. ii., ch. 6.) We can approximately gather the period of its extinction in Assyria from the fact that it it nowhere mentioned by Xenophon in his account of the wild animals of Mesopotamia, which he has described at great length; and also that it is only seen on the oldest monuments of Nimroud, and |