THE OLD FARMER'S ELEGY.

BY JOSIAH D. CANNING.

ON a green grassy knoll, by the banks of the brook,
That so long and so often has watered his flock,
The old farmer rests in his long and last sleep,
While the waters a low, lapsing lullaby keep.
He has ploughed his last furrow, has reaped his last grain,
No morn shall awake him to labour again.

Yon tree, that with fragrance is filling the air,

So rich with its blossoms, so thrifty and fair,

By his own hand was planted; and well did he say,
It would live when its planter had mouldered away.
He has ploughed his last furrow, has reaped his last grain,
No morn shall awake him to labour again.

There's the well that he dug, with its waters so cold,
With its wet dripping bucket, so mossy and old,
No more from its depths by the patriarch drawn,
For "the pitcher is broken," the old man is gone.
He has ploughed his last furrow, has reaped his last grain,
No morn shall awake him to labour again.

'Twas a gloom-giving day, when the old farmer died;
The stout-hearted mourned, the affectionate cried;
And the prayers of the just for his rest did ascend,
For they all lost a brother, a man, and a friend.
He has ploughed his last furrow, has reaped his last grain,
No morn shall awake him to labour again.

For upright and honest the old farmer was;
His God he revered, he respected the laws;

Though fameless he lived, he has gone where his worth
Will outshine, like pure gold, all the dross of this earth.
He has ploughed his last furrow, has reaped his last grain,
No morn shall awake him to labour again.

[Selected.

ADDING A CEREMONY.

MR. EDITOR:-When I came to *** I found a practice in our church, which I abolished instantly upon my own responsibility, for I considered it injurious to true Presbyterianism. This practice I will explain in the short article below:

There is in many of our churches a practice which is not Presbyterian, and yet which is becoming more and more common every day. I mean the practice of requiring a public profession of faith from the baptized children of the church when they desire to come to the

Lord's table. And indeed, in some churches there is a printed covenant or promise, which they are required to subscribe before the whole congregation. The origin of this ceremony I have not been able to discover; it has been in use in some of our churches for many years. From its nature I would refer it to independency. I will give a few reasons why this practice should be discouraged.

1. It is contrary to our book. Baptized persons are recognized as already in the church, and when they come to years of discretion they are to be reminded of their privilege and duty. Of unbaptized persons, who apply for admission to sealing ordinances, it is said (Directory, chap. ix. 4,) "they shall in ordinary cases, after giving satisfaction with respect to their knowledge and piety, make a public profession of their faith in the presence of the congregation, and thereupon be baptized." The distinction, then, is very clearunbaptized persons must make a profession, because they are without the Church-the baptized child has already the privilege, for he was initiated in infancy.

2. This usage has the tendency to remove from the baptized children of the church their obligations in regard to communion. They see here a ceremony which implies that their baptism was a mere form, and only after this public exhibition have they the right or privilege to approach the Lord's table. Their responsibility is lost, as a new gateway is formed in the church. They see the baptized children make a public promise with all the solemnity of an oath, as though heretofore they had been aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise.

This custom certainly has the effect to draw off the attention from that great Scriptural and Presbyterian fact, that all baptized children, when there is nothing against their character, have the privilege to sit down at the Lord's table. I say we are loosing sight of this truth, and this usage is one of the causes of its being hid. To some this may seem an unusual objection, but the more its influence is examined the more will the truth of the objection appear.

3. It is a mere form, and like all forms it carries danger with it. It has no authority in Scripture, for baptism is there the initiation into the church, and when administered to adults it is proper, and according to our book, that they should make a public profession, for this is their first step. But where have we the command to bring forward those who desire to assume their baptismal privileges, and cause them to covenant before the whole congregation? It is, therefore, either something added to baptism, or it is a mere form, useless and dangerous. Why not introduce the right of confirmation at once?

There is, I say, danger in this usage. Many rest upon it as some meritorious work. Many timid and weak Christians (as I know) are kept back from the Lord's table, not desiring this public exposure, which they feel to be unessential. Many come with a kind of superstitious feeling, as if grace was to be conferred thereby.

Now the only advantage which I have ever heard as resulting from VOL. II.-No. 7

39

this practice, was its solemnity-affecting the beholder and the receiver. So are the dim lights of the candles on the popish altar. So is the chanting in solemn measure in an unknown tongue. In the effect consists the advantage.

Such an act needs no external helps to make it more solemn. This is the very argument of Popery and Prelacy, and is contrary to the very spirit of true Presbyterianism. I hope soon to see all our churches discard this ceremony, which has been surreptitiously introduced, and return to the simple direction of our book. To consider all baptized children as already in the church, and no external form to be used before allowing them to approach the table of their Lord.

D.

THE PROTESTANT CHURCH IN HUNGARY.

[We have received from the Rev. Charles L. Brace, who has recently returned from Hungary, a few sheets from his new work on that country, just published, which we lay before our readers. Mr. Brace says: "Stripped of their means by the war; deprived of their schools and colleges, and their Church Councils, the Protestants of Hungary are now in their sorest need; a few more months-unless aid can be given-may see the old Protestant Church of Hungary utterly blotted out. Aid in money would be that which would be of most avail, as the existence of the Protestant schools, and of hundreds of churches, will depend on their having the means to meet the extortionate demands of the government. There would be no difficulty in transmitting such aid through the Society for Foreign Missions of the Free Church of Scotland, or through responsible private persons in Vienna."]

HISTORY OF THE PROTESTANT HUNGARIAN CHURCH.

Ir might be thought, as so little has ever been heard of the Protestant Church of Hungary, that it had a very quiet, pleasant existence, and had escaped the storms which have given such deep root to the other churches of Europe. But it is not so. Whatever vigour it has, comes from its struggles; its whole history has been a history of disaster and persecution, of a privilege won here by misfortune, and a liberty gained there by blood. It has been far from aid, in a land whose Catholic clergy are the richest in Europe. The whole weight of the Austrian government-to whom its every principle was odious-has been thrown against it. Yet, despite all this, the little church, winning strength and simplicity from its trials, has grown steadily on, until now it contains more than three millions of men, and embraces the intelligence, and virtue, and talent of Hungary within it.

The first great guarantee of the rights of the Protestant Church in Hungary was gained in 1606. There had been for two years an incessant persecution against them by the Jesuits, and by their influence the Emperor Rudolph had succeeded in carrying through, in the Hungarian Parliament, the resolution that "no more com

plaints of Protestants should be presented to that body," and that "the old laws against heretics should be renewed." The result was a terrible confusion through the land, to such a degree that one of the princes of Siebenbürgen, at that time an independent state, took advantage of it, to make an attack upon the Austrian provinces, and nearly succeeded in breaking to pieces the monarchy. Alarmed by this, the Austrian cabinet concluded the celebrated "Peace of Vienna," of 1606, according to one article of which "all persons in Hungary, whether noblemen or citizens of the free cities, or soldiers in the border-guard," should be allowed the free exercise of their religion, and Protestants should have the liberty, as in previous years, of presenting their petitions to the Hungarian parliament.

The security gained thus for the Protestant Church, however, did not continue long. In a few reigns another pupil of the Jesuits, Ferdinand II., had ascended the throne, under a solemn vow "to hunt every Protestant from this kingdom," even "if it cost him his crown and his life." Now commenced another time of darkness and suffering for this sorely-pressed Church. The Protestants were robbed, condemned without trial, in every way despoiled of their rights, until at length their troubles brought another Prince of Siebenbürgen to their aid; and the "Treaty of Linz," in 1645, was won with the armed band from Austria, and, approved by the Parliament, became one of the laws of the land. By this their rights were secured in the most solemn manner again, and complete liberty of conscience was not only granted, as in 1606, to certain classes, but to every class, "even the peasants, and all subjects through the land."

The Protestant Church of Hungary seemed at length to rest on a sure basis; but hardly twenty years had passed before the Jesuits again commenced their workings. The teachings of Luther and Calvin were proclaimed an invention of the devil. Preachers were forced from their office; churches occupied by soldiers; and the peasants driven to mass with the bayonet; and, in 1670, under pretext that the Protestants had been implicated in a conspiracy which was discovered in Hungary, the whole Church was nearly destroyed. Only some twenty parishes survived. The going over to Protestantism was treated as perjury by the laws of the land, and the whole reformed religion was utterly forbidden in all the newlyconquered parts of Hungary. Under Maria Theresa's muchpraised government these attacks continued. The "Council of State," a kind of "Star-chamber," was formed, and the most severe measures were constantly enacted by it against the unfortunate Protestants. A convert from Catholicism was punished with two years in a fortress. Non-observance of festivals was atoned for with heavy fines. The Jews were utterly forbidden to embrace the new faith. Freedom of the press was prohibited, and Catholic books forced upon the schools. The Protestants were shut out from all offices, their institutions of learning closed, and their young men forbidden to go to foreign universities. Everything seemed to forbode

an extinction of this weak, little sect. Perhaps this might have been the result, but in some way the dreaded enemy of Maria Theresa, the indomitable old Frederic of Prussia, heard of their sufferings; and though he always felt himself entirely at liberty to ill-treat the Protestants at home as he chose, he would never allow other people to abuse them. He wrote, in consequence, a stern, pithy letter to the queen, in regard to her treatment of "his brethren," which instantly produced a change in the legislation towards them, and gained them a breathing time.

Their privileges, however, were at length recovered, in the very last years of the eighteenth century, and, what is most remarkable, through the efforts of the Catholics of Hungary themselves. Indeed, it should be remembered that the attacks on the Protestants have scarcely ever come from their fellow-countrymen. The two churches in Hungary have generally lived very amicably. The hostility is from Vienna.

All the rights granted them by the two former treaties were secured to them again, and firmly established by royal decree, and by the acts of the parliament of 1792. They have passed since then through other persecutions, but have safely weathered every storm; and poor and small as the sect is, it has contained, during the last twenty years, the best men of Hungary in talent and character within it. Misfortunes have given it strength; and it is firmly founded now on the love and confidence of the people. It leads the education of the nation, and is the repository of free thought and pure morals. Naturally, after such a history, its deepest and strongest sentiment is a hatred of religious despotism. But its trials are not by any means over. Within the last year a blow has been aimed at the Church of Hungary by the Austrian government, more deadly than all the attacks through which it has yet passed an assault so insidious and well-directed that it must make every friend of Protestantism tremble for its very existence in Hungary. The mode in which this attack was made was through an "edict" from Haynau, to the military commandants in Hungary, with regard to "the new forming of the Protestant church," dated February, 1851.

CONSTITUTION OF THE HUNGARIAN PROTESTANT CHURCH.

In order to understand this edict, it will be necessary briefly to look at the constitution of the Hungarian Church, against which it is especially aimed. The whole Hungarian people are remarkable for one tendency, whether in matters of State or Church-a tendency which, in my view, even now in their misfortune gives us hope for their better future-an inclination to govern themselves by representative assemblies. Their Protestant Church is a complete democratic and representative system in its government, more so than any Church in Europe except the Scottish. It is, however,