short time, nearly decimated the hapless army. Famine, fatigue, and plague soon filled the ditches of the camp with decaying carcases, the stench from which increased the fearful havoc of death. Many of the highest nobles of France yielded to the epidemic, and the king's favourite son, the Count de Nevers, sickened with the plague. Stretched on the castle walls of Carthage, Louis strained his eyes afar over the burning sands and the molten sea, and up to the seemingly brazen sky, while the wind swept the dust into the nostrils of the dying in the camp, or tossed the ship where his sick son lay in the bay, parched with the heat of the August sun and the plague-fever. He prayed that God would take him and spare his son. That son died 3rd August, but his courtiers did not dare to tell the king till the 11th, and by that time Louis himself had been inoculated with the virus. Charles of Anjou, the king's able but abominable brother, whom he had prayed to send him help, made no appearance, and Louis composed himself to die. Louis, his namesake and eldest son, had died years ago, and Philip the Bold was destined to be his successor. To him he sent, and on his bed of pain and weakness dictated his last advices to him regarding the Sovereignty. These are some of his wise, calm words :-" Hold to justice; be inflexible and true, turning neither to the right hand nor to the left; and support the cause of the poor until justice be done to him. If any one has business with thee, be for him and against thyself. Beware of beginning war; and if it is begun, spare the Church and the innocent. Appease all quarrels that thou canst. Procure good officers, and see that they do their duty. Keep thine expenses within bounds."

On the evening of 24th August, having sent messages of comfort and resignation to the sick who were panting around him on the burning sands, he asked to be removed from his kingly couch to a bed of ashes, in token of penitence, humiliation, and grief. What was he, unworthy sinner, that he should be cared for above others, or that he should depart into God's presence from the trappings and state of a sovereign's couch? His request was complied with by his attendants; for the rude medical art of the age had plied its efforts to the utmost for his recovery, and all was vain. In this wretched case the dying king lay; his hands crossed over his chest, and his eyes fixed upon the form of Christ in his agony, wearing his crown of thorns, which the priests held before him. He prayed earnestly for his people, that God would deliver them from evil, and hold them steadfast to the faith; commended his nobles to the blessing of Christ; and besought for his successor a double portion of the Spirit of grace and wisdom. Last of all he prayed for himself. About three o'clock in the afternoon, 25th August, his breath became painful and his eye dull. He was heard to sigh faintly, "Oh, Jerusalem! Oh, Jerusalem!" So sighed the

but yet surrounded with true-hearted love. The watchers raised the curtains to admit the slight afternoon breeze, which, after curling the inland-stretching waters of the Bay of Tunis, brought their cool pleasantness upon the shore-upon his face. They saw, far off upon the sea, an appearance as of ships; they looked more narrowly, and descried the banners of the long-expected fleet of Charles of Anjou. They turned, their hearts beating with a freshborn hope, to tell the gladdening tidings to the king. They knelt among the ashes of the royal invalid's bed, and poured the words of their anxious spirits into his ear; but the ear was deaf, the eye sightless, the jaw fallen, the chest motionless, and the face rigid. The soul of the good king had slipped noiselessly away, unwatched and unseen, from the woe-wasted world in which he had striven to do his duty, to the God who loves the dutiful, and is the rewarder of the saints. Nothing is left now but that the spices of the South should be used to embalm the poor, worn garment of that precious spirit, and that the corpse of the crusader-monarch should be consigned to the last resting-place of mortal man. Lay him gently down in the grave, where his self-sacrifice was completed, and carry away, ye wasted remnants of a mighty host, the story of his life in your memory, of his death on your tongues, so that the ages to come may know and love St. Louis of France!

He

His was a reign of moral moderation, of prudent and sagacious reform, of skilful administration, and of honest progress. legalized Christian civilization, while he planted jurisprudence beside theology, and provided that the noblest teachings of the latter should be settled as law by the former. The history of royalty contains few records so brilliantly lighted up by Christian effort as the reign of Louis IX. As a diplomatist, a legislator, a warrior, and a churchman, he possesses a pure fame. His ermine is all but unspotted, and the fine gold of the French crown was left undimmed by him. Incorruptible on the seat of justice, merciful in wielding the sceptre; holy, according to his light, in his various relations as man and king; wise in council, heroic in war, equitable as a lawgiver, and honestly self-improving in person, the legislator of France merits our admiration as an epoch man. "The middle age," as Michelet says, "had produced its ideal, its flower and its fruit; the time was come for it to perish." St. Louis closed up the record of medievalism, and inaugurated the modern spirit of civilized life, by establishing the sovereignty of law as the safeguard of nations, commerce, property, rights, and religion. His is not a superficial but a radical greatness. It is the outgrowth of an inward, all-compelling faith-of Christian faith, which is the seed of Christian civilization, whose watchword is, "Right is always readier to forgive than to condemn," '—a truly godlike maxim, for—

"Earthly power doth then show likest God's,

When mercy seasons justice."

S. N.

Religion.

OUGHT STANDARDS OF FAITH TO BE IRREVISABLE?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III.

IN discussing this subject fairly and impartially, we must be careful that we bear in mind what is the rightful position of all standards of faith. On the one hand, we must not exalt them to an undue eminence by considering them absolutely infallible; nor yet, on the other hand, must we allow ourselves to esteem them of but slight importance in the Christian church. The claim of infallibility is the arch-heresy of Rome; positive indifference is the stepping-stone to infidelity. That human creeds, as the production of fallible mortals, are infallible, is contrary to the voice of both reason and revelation. That they are of no importance whatever, conscience and the Bible alike deny. Every merely human society must have its rules and regulations by which its candidates for admission are tried. So also is it absolutely necessary that every Christian society should have a well-defined, intelligible standard of faith. That the Bible alone should be our guide in all matters of religion few will deny; but amidst the many interpretations that are put upon its utterances by various minds, it is absolutely necessary that each Christian church, as a corporate body, should have a standard of faith based upon the word of God, clearly defined, and as intelligible as possible even to the most illiterate of its members, in order that as much as possible unity of

sentiment may exist among them and within its pale.

With these few introductory remarks we now enter upon the consideration of the question proposed,-" Ought Standards of Faith to be irrevisable ?" We contend for the affirmative side of the question, and we base our convictions upon the following arguments:

but

1. To alter the creed or standards of faith of a church is unfair towards those who have already subscribed to it. For instance, suppose we are members of an Independent, Baptist, or Episcopalian church. We have before admission into that church given our assent to certain articles of faith which we at the time considered scriptural; we see no reason whatever to alter our belief now, a party in the church have since their admission changed many of their opinions, and now wish for a revision of its creed in order that they may more consistently conform to it. This party may perhaps form a bare majority, and may ultimately succeed in gaining their 1866.

S

end. In that case we ask, Are we who are satisfied with the original creed treated fairly? We have been members of the church for some years, and have no wish to seek a home elsewhere, but our consciences cannot conform to the innovation, and we must therefore secede, not willingly, but of constraint. Is this fair? We trow not. This is the tyranny of the majority, and an admission of the ultimate right of all that a majority may choose to do.

2. The advantages that might possibly be gained by a revision would be far outweighed by the evils that must necessarily attend it. What confusion would inevitably follow if all our churches were to commence a revision of their creeds! Among the Episcopalians, we have High Church, Broad Church, and Low Church, men of all shades of opinions. The consequences of an attempt at revision in this church would be deplorable indeed. Each party would contend for its own interpretation of Scripture, much bitterness and evil-speaking would ensue, many tender-hearted Christians would be deeply grieved,—

"We should but bring the shadow of an army

To issues that would then be full of doubt;" "There is a fortitude in standing still

Which leaders know, but they that follow, never;"

and the final result would be,-each party would be more firmly rooted in its own theory, and divisions would increase rather than decrease. Would not this be incurring the direct displeasure of the Most High? 'Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them," Rom. xvi. 17.

66

The same disastrous effects would follow if each body of Christians among Dissenters were to attempt the same. Nay, is it not possible to point out many churches among Dissenters, once flourishing and healthy, now stagnant and sickly; once the stronghold of Bible truth, now a very hotbed of Unitarianism, Socinianism, and even Atheism itself? What has caused this? Repeated revisions of its creed; one by one have the old articles of faith been abolished until they have all been set aside, and the pulpits that once were occupied by a Whitefield, or a Bunyan, are now in the hands of a Holyoake or a Brigham Young. This is a fact too apparent to be denied. But it may be argued, "Do we not see such changes from sound evangelical truth to Unitarianism or Puseyism even in the churches of the Establishment, whose standards of faith remain unrevised ?" True; but who can tell how such instances would have increased had these standards been repeatedly revised since they were originally framed by the Reformed Church? Disjointed as she now is, she would have been rent into fragments long ere this, had she not persistently adhered to her original Thirty-nine Articles. That there is room for revision in some of her formularies we readily grant; but let her adhere closely to her Articles and Homilies, for as surely as

she begins to revise them in these days of conflicting opinions, so surely will her death-knell be heard, and Popery and infidelity will again occupy her high places.

In conclusion, we would urge our friends on the negative side to weigh well this matter before coming to a decision. Let us ever remember improvement and revision do not always go hand in hand, especially in matters of religion. New truths may be continually discovered in the field of nature, and investigation should be diligently pursued in search of more, but it becomes all who take the Bible for the standard of their faith to look with a jealous eye upon any new doctrine which their forefathers have never discovered. That there are mysteries in the Bible, and many things hard to be understood, no one will deny; but all its fundamental doctrines are to the eye of faith clear as noonday, so that "he who runs may read." For these reasons we give it as our decided opinion, that standards of faith ought to be irrevisable. HOWARD.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III.

HAVING availed myself of the privilege, on former occasions, of contributing a few articles, on various subjects, which were inserted, with my initials attached, in the pages of the British Controversialist, I have, like many others, naturally taken much interest in, and been a constant reader of, this valuable monthly publication. It is with much pleasure, therefore, that I again use my pen in the same work; and inasmuch as the views of R. S., the writer of the affirmative article in the July number, are altogether in opposition to mine, I want to cross swords with him. He will have several to fight against, and unless he is covered from head to feet with impenetrable armour, it is doubtful whether he will survive the many wounds likely to be inflicted upon him, so as to be able hereafter, with energy and spirit, to take part in another battle. Let me therefore say to my unknown friend, Be ready! The contest will be hot and strong! but let us all keep our temper; we can work all the better if we do.

I apprehend that this question does not relate solely to the "standards of faith" in connection with the Established Church, but also to those of Nonconformists, Roman Catholics, and all other Christian sects. If so, it necessarily follows that it would be arbitrary and unjust to hold that neither of such standards should be revised.

R. S. says (p. 35), "It is manifest that the subjects of faith refer to infinite and immutable qualities, and that as the essences are themselves unchangeable, so what is delivered concerning them ought also to be unchangeable; and this is shown further from considering that whatever has been delivered concerning these divine essences, and on subjects relating to them, must of necessity have come from the Divine Being himself, or His immediate messengers, and so deriving its origin from perfection itself, or from infallible