missioned along with John, by the Apostles at Jerusalem, to visit the Samaritan converts, and confirm them in the faith, Acts viii. 14, 15. We have also seen that he was rebuked by Paul in presence of the church in Antioch, which does not look like the recognition of supremacy. The same apostle asserts, that in no respect was he inferior to, yea, that he was "not a whit behind the chief of the apostles;" which, even allowing there is a reference to Peter, is a claim of equality at least, 2 Cor. xi. 5. And the same thing is implied, Gal. ii. 8; "For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles;" that is, they were both equally endowed and distinguished in their respective spheres. But further; all claim to such supremacy is virtually condemned by our Lord, as inconsistent with the spirituality of his kingdom, and with that humility and equality which he inculcated on his disciples. When James and John had roused the indignation of their brethren, by claiming the precedence in his kingdom, "Jesus called them, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them; but it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister (or attendant), and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant," chap. xx. 25-28. And still more explicitly, when exposing the pride and vanity of the Jewish Scribes, he says, "But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren (or equals). And call no man your father upon the earth (the very title arrogated to himself by the Bishop of Rome), for one is your Father, who is in heaven; neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ," chap. xxiii. 9, 10.

Allowing that Peter was (in a limited sense) the rock or foundation of the Church, it was only as he was inspired to deliver the doctrines and institutions of the Christian faith, which constitute the true basis of the spiritual edifice; but this honour he holds, not exclusively, but in common with the rest of his brethren. Thus Paul, in speaking of the Church as a temple, represents it as "being built on the foundation"-not of Peter only, but-" of the apostles and prophets," Ephes. ii. 20; and in the sublime description of the New Jerusalem which we have in Revelations xxi., the wall of the city is said to have twelve foundations, "and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb," ver. 14:

As to "the keys of the kingdom of heaven " being given to Peter, this seems evidently to allude to the important part assigned to him in the setting up of Christ's kingdom in the world. The use of a key is to open a door; and this instrument was commonly worn by the treasurer or chamberlain of the kingdom, as symbolical of his office, Isa. xxii. 22. And it pleased Him, to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, to employ this apostle to "open the door of faith," both to the Jews and Gentiles; first, by the conversion of three thousand on the day of Pentecost through his instrumentality, Acts ii. 14, 38, 40; and secondly, by his being sent to preach the Gospel to Cornelius, chap. x. 5, to which he subsequently alludes as a special mark of the Divine favour, chap. xv. 7; "Ye know that a good while ago God made choice among

us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe." These were the first-fruits of the Christian Church among both classes; and in this point of view, Peter might be said to lay the foundation of the Church, or to open the door of the kingdom. But it is one thing to lay a foundation, and another to be the foundation; and in this respect the apostle could have no successor.

Or the expression in the first clause of this nineteenth verse may be considered as explained by the second: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom, and whatsoever thou shalt bind," &c. Now, whatever may be meant by binding and loosing, we find this very same power imparted elsewhere to all the apostles; so, when Christ appeared to the eleven, after his resurrection, he said to them, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained," John xx. 23; an expression which is universally admitted to be equivalent to the binding and loosing above mentioned: yea, we find the same power extended to the Church at large, acting in the name and by the authority of Christ, in the administration of discipline, chap. xviii. 18. After directing the Church to excommunicate the refractory person, the Saviour adds, in the very terms addressed to Peter, "Verily I say. unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven;" whence, from the context, it appears, that not only was the power of the keys granted to all the apostles alike, but was extended to every separate church or congregation, in so far as their acts are consonant with the will of Christ.

On the whole, we apprehend that, as applied to Peter and the rest of the apostles, the meaning of this part of the text is, that to them the key of knowledge, the "word of wisdom," would be committed, so as to enable them infalliby to reveal the will of God, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. xiv. 37; 1 Thess. iv. 6 ; and to declare whose sins are forgiven, and whose are retained; or, as Dr. Mc Knight paraphrases the words, in his "Harmony of the Gospels," "Whatever things thou shalt bind up from men, or declare forbidden on earth, shall be forbidden by heaven; and whatever things thou shalt loose to men-permit to be doneshall be lawful and obligatory in the esteem of heaven," (see in loc.) The apostles were further entrusted with the key of discipline, being empowered to "open" the kingdom of heaven, or to admit to the communion of the Church, those who appeared worthy of this privilege, on a profession of their faith, and to exclude from it those who proved themselves unworthy of Christian fellowship. Of the former prerogative we have an example, in their "separating the disciples" from the mixed multitude, and forming them everywhere into visible communities or churches; of the latter, in their solemn exclusion of offenders, as when Peter detected the dis simulation of Ananias and Sapphira, and denounced the covetousness of Simon Magus, Acts v. 3, 4; viii. 21. Another example occurs, in the case of the incestuous person in the Corinthian Church, 1 Cor. v. 3-5; but in that instance the act of excommunication was the joint deed of the apostle and the Church. And So, wherever the laws of Christ are faithfully and impartially executed, it may be said of

every Christian Church, "whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."

We cannot, however, judge the heart. Even the apostles themselves, and their fellow-labourers, were sometimes deceived, as in the cases just mentioned, and treated men, not always as they appeared in the sight of God, but according to their visible character and outward profession; but in their inspired writings they declare whose sins are remitted and whose are retained,-the former, in the case of all believing penitents,the latter, in the case of all impenitent sinners, or hypocritical and formal professors. Peter himself did not pronounce absolution on Simon Magus, but exhorted him to pray to God for forgiveness; and it is presumptuous in any man to take it upon him, as the Pope and his clergy do, authoritatively to absolve another from sin, or to decide his future destiny. This is the prerogative of God alone; and it is deeply to be deplored that any such power should be claimed (especially by a professed Protestant body), as is recognized by the Church of England, in their service for the Visitation of the Sick.

But supposing we allow that a certain degree of supremacy is granted to Peter in this passage, it does not therefore follow that he was to have any successors in the possession of these prerogatives; far less can it be shown that the Bishops of Rome have any right to appropriate this power to themselves. The Bishop of Antioch or of Jerusalem could have furnished a much better claim to this distinction, if the mere circumstance of Peter's residing or labouring there could be held as a sufficient plea in a matter of such vast importance. The popish writers pretend that Peter was the founder and first Bishop of the Church in Rome,-nay, that he presided over it no less than twenty-five years, which would comprehend the greater part of his ministerial life. But there is no evidence in support of this assertion, but the contrary. That the apostle ever was in Rome at all has been doubted by some learned men, (see Spanheim, as quoted by Cave, in his Life of St. Peter): it seems, however, generally admitted that he either visited that city or was carried a prisoner thither, a short time before his death, about the year 65, and there suffered martyrdom by crucifixion, under the Emperor Nero. Even this rests on the authority of uncertain tradition, the first writer that alludes to it (Papias, in Eusebius,) having lived more than a hundred years after the death of the apostle. But that he founded the Church there, or presided over it as chief pastor, we have no evidence; there is, in fact, no intimation in Scripture by whom the Church in Rome was founded; and this seems to have been purposely concealed by the Holy Ghost, as if to refute the pretensions of the Papists. There were "strangers from Rome" converted on the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. 10, who probably introduced the Gospel on their return home. Aquila and Priscilla seem also to have been useful in this way; but he was neither apostle nor minister, but a simple mechanic, Acts xviii. 1-3. When Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, about the year 58, no apostle seems to have yet been there, for he speaks of his anxiety to "impart to them some spiritual gifts," which endowments were generally conferred by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, chap. i. 11. On his arrival thither, as related in the last chapter of the Acts, no men

tion is made of his being introduced to Peter, which would hardly have been omitted had that apostle been there. In the epistles addressed by Paul from Rome to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and Timothy, no salutation is sent from Peter, though several inferior persons are mentioned; and among all the names enumerated in Rom. xvi., amounting to between twenty and thirty, no notice is taken of Peter; which seems clearly to prove, that when that epistle was written, he was not there. It is indeed pretended, that Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, which he designates Babylon, chap. v. 13; but, as has been well observed, it is very unlikely that the apostle, in the close of an epistle which is wholly of a didactic nature, would have given a symbolical name to the place from which it was written, and would have served no good purpose in the way of concealment, while his own name was appended to it. The apostle John, indeed, applies this name to Rome in the Apocalypse; but that book was not written for many years after this epistle, and is wholly prophetical and symbolic. It is far more probable that Ancient Babylon is meant, which even then was a considerable city, much frequented by the Jews in Chaldea; others think it was a city in Egypt of the same name. From this it is evident, that if Peter ever was in Rome, he came thither to die, not to reign; but the connecting link being wanting, the whole chain falls to the ground.

The earlier Bishops of Rome were humble, devoted men, and some of them suffered martyrdom under the heathen emperors; they claimed no authority over their brethren, repudiated the title of Universal Bishops, and denounced those who should lay claim to it as Antichrist. But with the progress of Christianity, the number of professing Christians in Rome was rapidly multiplied: and through the injudicious largesses of the wealthy members, the power and influence of the bishops gradually increased. They also encouraged appeals to themselves from other churches, which gave them a plausible pretence for deciding in matters of controversy. After the civil establishment of the Christian faith by Constantine the Great, they rapidly rose in pomp and splendour, under the patronage of the imperial convert; and it is related by Dr. George Campbell, of Aberdeen, in his admirable "Lectures on Ecclesiastical History," (a work which should be carefully pondered at the present period,) that such were the emoluments connected with the office of bishop soon after this time, that it became an object of ambition to worldly men, and was contested with all the keenness incident to a political election. As an instance of this, he introduces Prætextatus, a nobleman of the highest rank, but still attached to Paganism, as saying, in a style of pleasantry, to Damasus, the bishop, "Make me but Bishop of Rome, and I will turn Christian immediately," Vol. I, Lect. XII. The power thus acquired was greatly augmented by the transference of the seat of government from Rome to Constantinople; "He who had hitherto let," (or hindered, as the apostle expresses it, in a passage somewhat obscure, 2 Thess. ii. 7,)" was now taken out of the way, and that wicked one was fully revealed." The bishop remained behind, as the principal person in Rome; and hence the extraordinary design was formed, of raising the bishopric of Rome into a temporal

sovereignty, and of claiming, as bishops of the most celebrated and wealthy city in the empire, precedency and supremacy over all other pastors. This claim was long resisted, especially by the Eastern Church and the Bishops of Constantinople, by whom it has never been acknowledged; but by the superstition of the northern tribes who overran Italy, it was conceded and ratified in the West. By confirming the infamous Phocas, the murderer and successor of the emperor Maurice, in his usurped dominion, Boniface III. acquired the title of Universal Bishop, in 602; by grants from various rulers, the States of the Church were bestowed on the Pope, under the title of "the patrimony of St Peter;" and he was raised to the rank of a temporal sovereign by Pepin, king of France, and his son Charlemagne, about the year 755. With the acquisition of temporal power, a right was claimed to the use of the temporal sword; and thus that Church whose "faith was spoken of throughout the whole world," which was "planted wholly a right seed," and which was "espoused as a chaste virgin to Christ," at last assumed the character of a cruel persecutor, and appeared as the mother of harlots, drunken with the blood of the saints and martyrs of Jesus. The bishop, or chief pastor, was transformed into the Pope, or Father, by way of eminence, and styled "his Holiness," or "the Holy Father," a name appropriated to the Most High, John xvii. 11; the Presbyters and deacons were converted into cardinals or ecclesiastical princes; the kings of the earth were required to bow to the authority of the sovereign pontiff; refractory kingdoms were excommunicated, or interdicted from religious ordinances; princes were crowned, and bishops invested in their office, by the haughty prelate of the Vatican, who claimed the power of deposing or suspending them, and of absolving subjects from their oath of allegiance to their lawful sovereign-as in the case of Elizabeth of England; and presuming "to change times and laws," the same "lawless one" published dispensations and granted indulgences, as if he were literally empowered to open or shut the gates of heaven at his pleaThis mystery of iniquity is described by the prophet Daniel, under the symbol of "the little horn," chap. vii. 20-25; it is further developed in Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians, chap. ii. 3-12, under the character of "the man of sin, the son of perdition;" some additional particulars are added, 1 Tim. iv. 1—8; and it is drawn to the life by the apostle John, in the Revelations, under the twofold character of "the beast with horns like a lamb, and speaking as a dragon," and the gorgeously arrayed harlot, sitting upon many waters, Rev. xiii, and xvii. But the same prophecies which reveal its rise, set limits to its duration, and predict its fall." The Lord hasten it in his time!" 3. We shall now advert to certain general considerations which militate against this alleged supremacy.

sure.

(1.) And, at the first glance, the claim set up by the advocates of the Papacy for the supreme headship and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, seems not only extravagant but blasphemous. The Saviour himself requires no visible representative on earth: He has no need of any deputy, vicar, or vicegerent, for he hath promised to be with his faithful servants always, even to the end of the world, and is present, in his

Divine nature," wherever two or three are gathered together in his name." If any substitute be recognised in the New Testament, it is the Holy Spirit-not a sinful and mortal man, but the promised Comforter, whom the Father has sent in his name, and who shall abide with the Church for ever. To act as universal pastor would require the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, which no created being can pretend to. To superintend the affairs of the whole Christian Church throughout the world, to hear every appeal, and to decide in all matters of controversy, is too great a burden to be sustained by any finite creature-far less by a feeble and fallible man. But it is said the Pope is infallible ! if so, what shall we make of rival popes, each claiming to have the rightful power, and anathematising and excommunicating each other! or how shall we reconcile the opposing and contradictory decrees that, at different times, have been issued by successive Pontiffs,-one annulling what another had sanctioned or ordained! Such arrogant pretensions are inconsistent with the Saviour's prerogative, who is repeatedly declared to be "head over all things to the church," Ephes. i. 22; Col. i. 18, who holds the stars in his right-hand, and walks in the midst of the golden candlesticks, and who has the keys of death and of the invisible world, Rev. i. 18; iii. 7.

(2.) We have a right to expect some resemblance, in outward condition, between the pretended successor of Peter, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, and those whose representative he claims to be. Take the case of the Apostle Peter, and is there any point of similarity between him and the Bishop of Rome? Look at the formeroriginally a fisherman in Galilee-afterwards travelling on foot, as an itinerant preacher, from place to place, declaring he had neither silver nor gold, declining all personal honours; as when he refused the homage of Cornelius, saying, "Stand up, I myself also am a man,”now lying in prison, and then lodging with a tanner in Joppa; and contrast him with the proud Prelate of Rome, residing at his ease in a palace, surrounded with armed guards, receiving or sending ambassadors, and affecting the style and attributes of royalty. Or let the comparison be made between him and that "meek and lowly" Teacher, whose vicegerent he claims to be: the one despised and rejected of men, the other flattered and honoured by the princes of this world-the one going about from city to city preaching the glad tidings of salvation, the other shutting himself up in solemn seclusion, and never appearing but only on some high festival-the one riding on an ass's colt, the other on a richly caparisoned mule, or in a gilded chariot-the one clothed in a home-made vestment, the other in a scarlet robe-the one never crowned but with thorns, the other with the ambitious tiara-the one stretched on a cross, the other seated on a throne-the one refusing to be a judge or divider, the other grasping at universal dominion, and treating kings as vassals and dependents, permitting them to kiss his foot or to hold his stirrup, as Alexander III. did to the kings of France and England, or to wait barefooted at his gate, as Gregory VII. did to Henry IV., or appearing under a gorgeous canopy, borne on men's shoulders, or on an elevated platform, so moved by machinery, as to give him the appearance of being suspended in the air, while he no sooner is seen at the great window

of St. Peter's, than the vast multitude fall prostrate before him, as to an incarnate Deity, while he stretches out his hand, and gives them his blessing. So true is the prediction of Paul, that he "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or is worshipped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," 2 Thess. ii. 3. Look on this picture and on that are they like?

(3.) We have a right at least to expect some resemblance in point of moral character. But though there were unquestionably some popes, especially in the earlier periods of the church's history, exemplary in their lives; others have been infamous for profligacy, as Cæsar Borgia, better known by the title of Alexander VI.; others have been monsters of cruelty, as Innocent, who instituted the Court of Inquisition, and others infidels, or mere men of the world, as Leo X., who was too much occupied with patronizing the arts and sciences, to notice the movements of the daring monk of Wirtemberg, and thus allowed the Reformation to acquire strength before he thought of opposing it, and who spoke of Christianity as a "profitable fable." Even the present pontiff has rendered himself odious by his duplicity and tyranny, parcelling out England into bishoprics, and abating not a jot of the spiritual authority claimed by his predecessors. We regard, then, this claim of supremacy as a monstrous fiction, and a prodigious experiment on the credulity of mankind.

What, then, is to be done in the present emergency? Let us distinctly avow our attachment to the principles of Protestantism, and claim, as our inheritance, the free unrestricted use of the Holy Scriptures, and the right of private judgment, With an open Bible, and a pure ministration of the Gospel, we have nothing to fear.

Let Christians of all evangelical denominations lay aside their unprofitable contentions, and study to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." The watch-word of the enemy is "Divide, and conquer!" Let ours be, "Union is strength." Thus the petty states of Greece wasted their resources in mutual wars; but when the great King of Persia appeared on their shores, followed by a million of men, they laid aside their ancient grievances, united together as one man, and drove back the common enemy, with shame and dishonour, to his own land.

It is our comfort to know that the true Church of Christ is indestructible. It is founded on the Rock of Eternal Truth, composed of lively stones, built up by Christ himself, and "growing into an holy temple in the Lord, an habitation of God through the Spirit." Particular Churches, as visible communities, may rise and fall. Where are the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, so famous in ancient times ? Where are the Churches of Lesser Asia; and what is the present condition of the mother Church in Jerusalem itself? Alas! its glory has departed. But the Christian Church, as a spiritual community, cannot perish. It has sustained successive attacks from Jews, Pagans, Mahommedans, and Infidels, and for many ages was almost buried under the superstitions and corruptions of Popery; but it still survives, like the bush of Horeb, "burning, but not consumed." It is not confined to one country, or one denomination, but exists more or less in all, and includes all who are truly regenerated, and united to Christ by faith, but none else. Do we belong to that Church? Alas! what signifies a name to live, if we be dead! Matt. xiii. 40, 41.

London Missionary Society, Blomfield-street, 12th Dec. 1850. DEAR SIR,-Of all the demands for Christian sympathy and generous support, you will, I doubt not, readily admit that none are stronger than those of the widows and fatherless children of faithful Missionaries-men who have sacrificed their lives for the sake of the Lord Jesus, and the salvation of the heathen. То enforce appeals on their behalf, arguments are superfluous to sustain their claims,-motives the most tender and sacred, will present themselves to every Christian mind.

By the Directors and friends of the London Missionary Society, such motives have long been warmly cherished; and they have endeavoured to supply to the widows and bereaved families of their honoured and lamented Missionaries, not the means of adequate support (for this has been beyond their power), but a measure of assistance, whereby they might be enabled to support themselves.

Twenty-two widows, with their dependent children,are now receiving the aid of the Society;

and a brief reference to their several cases will be sufficient to prove their necessities, and establish their claims. One is the widow of a Missionary in Polynesia, with a young family of nine children. Another, with seven children, is the bereaved partner of a devoted labourer in British India, who, in the prosecution of his missionary work, went to sea, and was shipwrecked and lost. The husband of a third was shot (it is hoped accidentally) by the French troops in Tahiti, leaving two infants. The husband of a fourth, leaving three young children, was drowned in one of the rivers of South Africa. Among the rest are devoted Christian women, who laboured with their deceased husbands in the mission field for twenty and thirty years, and who are now, in the evening of life, oppressed with the infirmities inseparable from a life of toil and anxiety in a tropical climate.

To meet the affecting and urgent wants of these widows and orphans, the Directors attempted, some years since, to establish a separate permanent fund, and several liberal contributions were made with that design, which are

invested in Government securities. But the annual produce of this fund amounts only to 2867., while the additional contributions for this specific object have not, on the average of the last three years, exceeded 1607. per annum ; making a total of less than 4507. On the other hand, the annual payments to widows and orphans during the same period have exceeded 1,1307.; leaving 680l. to be supplied from the general funds of the Society.

Most gladly would the Directors continue to appropriate this amount to an object of so much interest and importance, did the state of their finances permit; but the extension of the Society's missions, the expenditure of nearly all its funded property, and the inadequacy of its income for many years past, to meet its ordinary expenditure, compel them to make a distinct and urgent appeal to their friends on behalf of the widows and orphans of their departed Missionaries.

They urge no claim, however, requiring the exercise of unusual liberality, much less of selfdenial; but they venture to suggest a method of Christian benevolence which, if generally adopted would meet the necessities of the case, and prove as easy as it would be gratifying to the best feelings of the contributors. They respectfully recommend to the pastors and officers of the several churches by whom the Society is kindly sustained, on the first sabbath of the ensuing year, when they assemble with their brethren at the table of the Lord, to mark the occasion, by a special offering on behalf of the widows and children of their faithful messengers, who bave fallen in the field of Missionary toil.

It may be possible for the more numerous and more wealthy churches thus to appropriate a moiety of their sacramental offerings on that occasion; but the Directors would not in any in

stance press their application to the injury of the poor members of churches, who have the first claim on the sympathy of their brethren; in such cases they simply ask that those Christian communicants who are willing, may have the opportunity of making some addition to their usual contributions at the Lord's table; and that the amount thus given, over and above the ordinary sacramental collection, may be appropriated to this special object.

On the pastors and officers of the churches the success of the present application will mainly depend, and the Directors cherish the hope that you, dear sir, will give it your cordial and effective support by commending it to the deacons and members of your church, and thus securing their co-operation in an exercise of Christian mercy, which, while it will afford hallowed, though mournful, pleasure to the donors, will also awaken in the objects of their Christian sympathy renewed gratitude to the British Churches, combined with humble thankfulness to the God of the widow, and the father of the fatherless.

Urgently entreating your kind and hearty concurrence in the present application. I am, dear Sir,

On behalf of the Directors,
Yours faithfully,

ARTHUR TIDMAN, F. Secretary.

P. S. Should you be able kindly to accede to this application, allow me respectfully to suggest that extracts therefrom be read to your church, explaining the necessities of the widows and orphans of our Missionaries; and may I further request that you will transmit to me by post-office order, or otherwise, the amount specially contributed on the occasion for their relief, by the 15th of January; as it is desirable that the several contributions should appear in the Missionary Magazine for the following month.

No. I.

REV. SIR, The CHRISTIAN WITNESS for December contains letters from three gentlemen, in reply to one from myself on the subject of Building Societies, which appeared in October. Favour me with space for a short rejoinder.

1. I have to remind Mr. Joyce that he has overlooked my particular request to be informed "How much money Mr. A. received as an advance upon his shares?"

2. I beg to state to Mr. Kershaw, that I do not apprehend "incalculable mischief" from the principle of co-operation involved in Building Societies, but from unqualified recommendations of the system as regards various points of practice. I do not understand such a thing as Mr. Joyce's" unqualified recommendation of the system, but only upon the supposition that the As80ciations are wisely founded." Mr. Kershaw's figures are equally deceptive with the others,not intentionally, of course, but from that entire ignoring of the operation of interest which the prospectuses and balance-sheets of Building So cieties so commonly exhibit. He states that a man who pays 2s. 6d. a week for 172 lunar months, instead of paying 4s. 7d. a month and

£60 in one sum at the end of the term, saves £13 15s. Now this is quite wrong; the man saves nothing at all, for the two payments are precisely equivalent at five per cent. interest, the rate assumed in the Society's Tables. What would become of a Life Insurance Company, which should thus disregard the equation between a present payment of given amount, and a deferred payment of larger amount?

Having stated in my former letter, that the advantage afforded by the Building Society, in accepting repayment of advances in monthly driblets, was "unquestionably great," I do 'not think Mr. Kershaw should have said I was not sufficiently straightforward to award any commendation for it. Nor am I open to the charge of arguing illogically, that because my Society failed, therefore all are to be avoided. My conclusions had been come to before I alluded to the Society to which I had belonged.

3. To Mr. Fincham I have to acknowledge that I committed an oversight in speaking only of the borrowing members as paying the fines. I should have qualified my statement thus, viz., that the borrowers, in estimating the rate of interest they pay, should include the expenses;