years past, been admitted; and the successors of such labourers have inherited a house upon which they must work, where there is more of wood as the frame-work, hay as the thatch-roof, and stubble as the mixture in the walls, than of gold, silver, or precious stones, to give it beauty and strength. Jachin and Boaz are not there.

Some men may succeed in that part of the work which consists in leading sinners to Christ, who are yet defective in that which is necessary to their future edification. If, through the neglect or unskilfulness of the labourer, converts are left to spiritual famine and death, the workman will suffer loss. It is a very important part of the work of a builder for God, to build up converts in their most holy faith; and if he neglect this branch of duty, many may fall away and perish, and the fault will be charged upon him who should watch for souls as he who must give account.

There are many ways in which a builder may fail in his work, even while, in general, he may be owned and employed by the owner of the building; and, as a consequence of his failures, his work will be burned.

But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. The supposition all along is, that the builder is a sincere Christian. He is a labourer employed by the great Proprietor of the house, and he builds on the true foundation. This shows that the apostle is not speaking of such teachers as were labouring to destroy "the faith," such as would subvert the gospel of Christ. He is speaking of God's labourers. Yet such as are here described are not sufficiently careful or skilful in their preparation or selection of materials with which to build. The result is, some, at least, of their work is burned. But they are not condemned as wicked servants or perverse builders, and, therefore, they shall be saved.

The man who builds himself a house of combustible materials chiefly, may put into it some which are fire-proof, yet that house may be consumed by fire so rapidly as to allow him barely time to escape with his life. He has lost all his labour in erecting his house, and all the comfort which he hoped to enjoy in it as his shelter and home. His life is saved, but he is left destitute of many comforts.

So the builder for God has failed to construct a fire-proof house, and he receives no reward for such labour, and is "scarcely saved" himself from the fire which burns his works. This may be the experience of some who, in our day, are acquiring extensive popularity as revivalists, and gathering crowds into the Church for their successors or the fire of the great day to displace.

Verse 16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God? Here the apostle applies what he had so fully illustrated. Know ye not

do ye not now understand—that ye are the very temple I have been describing? As if to take away all obscurity and all doubt of his meaning, he sets a guard both in van and rear. In the van he has placed, "Ye are God's building;" and in the rear, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?" The whole is intended to save us from the error into which so many fall, notwithstanding the precaution. How could he have made this meaning plainer? His Alpha and Omega both declare that the building-the temple-consists of the Church members collectively; and it follows that those who are the builders must use persons as materials in its erection. And it follows with equal conclusiveness, that the works of builders which are to be tried are persons brought by them into the Church. He is not discussing the question of individual temples of God; and while it is certain that the Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of each believer, it is certain that here St. Paul is speaking of a building made up of the aggregate of members in that one place.

Verse 17. If any man defile [destroy] the temple of God, him will God destroy. Here is the warning for which he had been all along preparing their minds. By their strife and divisions they were destroying the Church. If they continued to "bite and devour one another, they would be consumed one of another."

The enormity of such an offence is placed before them in its true colours and dimensions. For the temple of God is holy. The act which destroys it is a sacrilegious act; and those who are guilty will God destroy. Whatsoever tends to this disastrous result should be avoided as both dangerous and wicked. It is no small matter to be guilty of causing schism in the Church, or separations from it; and such as cause divisions and offences will meet a fearful doom, unless they repent.

The subject will justify brief remarks in conclusion. The exposition here given harmonizes in all its parts, and gives an easy and good sense to every expression. All other explanations appear to lose sight of the leading metaphor, which is the key to the meaning of the whole. It is believed that here is nothing strained and nothing fanciful. The whole is not only consistent in its parts, but is also in harmony with the analogy of faith. No violence is done to any doctrine of Scripture, nor to any rule of sound interpretation.

This view accords strictly with the scope of the apostle—with his manifest design. On any other principle it is not easy to see why he should have chosen such metaphors, and especially why he should have adhered so closely to the main one, "We are labourers, ye are God's building." The apostle saw the evils which were rapidly increasing in that Church. It was in imminent peril because of divisions. To

bring it back to the way of peace, he places ministers and members in their proper relation to each other, and all in their true relation to God. A familiar, but forcible metaphor is chosen: a building, with the labourers employed in its erection, and the materials used in its construction. The whole subject is treated in a way to cure them of their folly, and avert the threatening ruin.

The subject is eminently practical. It teaches ministers caution and discretion, as well as diligence in their work. In the apostle's days, especially, ministers were the sole judges of the qualifications of candidates for Church membership. It belonged to them alone to select or reject materials with which to build a house for God. They went where no Church existed, and it was their work alone to prepare materials for its erection. They laid the foundation, preached Christ, and when God gave success, as wise master-builders, they made the selection, brought persons, as lively stones, together, and rejoiced to see the "whole grow into a holy temple in the Lord." Even now the ministers are held responsible, to a great extent, for the character of the visible Church. They are the builders of that sacred edifice, and their work in this respect, as well as in all others, should be performed in view of the fire which shall try, and the day which shall declare it.

The subject is eloquent in warning to Church members. Let them know, that if found unholy when they go hence they will be as fuel for the fire. Instead of looking for a moral purgation in that fire, they should hasten to the atoning and cleansing blood. "For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be as stubble. And the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

ART VI-THE HEATHEN AND MEDIEVAL CIVILIZATION OF IRELAND.

THE Irish, it is known, pretend to have possessed learning and civilization, while the rest of Europe, including England, was wrapt in mediæval ignorance. Is this pretension well founded? Did the civilization exist? And if so, to what extent-in what degree? These are questions of high importance, in both their special and their general bearings.

In truth, the first question, besides determining a point of local and

national history-the fact that Ireland had an exceptional civilization at this period-would, if decided in the affirmative, present us two ulterior queries: the one, as to the source of this high refinement; the other, as to the cause of its subsequent disappearance. And each of these, again, would subdivide into other great branches. For, of necessity, the source must have been either indigenous or derived. But, if indigenous, it were a thing without example in all history, excepting Egypt-an exception however due only to our ignorance-and if, therefore, derived, then from which of the traditional colonizations? And as to what had caused its loss, the practical question would come to this: Whether England, instead of civilizing, as she says, has not in truth rebarbarized Ireland?

Such is the double series of ascending and descending consequences which depends on the decision of the first inquiry. If the decision be affirmative, the consequences become principles for analytical and systematic exploration of Irish history. And if negative, that is, if no such civilization has existed, then its origin and end, and the thousand contests about its splendours, would, of course, be cut off, once for all, by the root; the Irish people would come themselves to see both what they have been, and where they are; and philosophical inquirers would turn attention to a country among the most ancient, the most interesting and most monumental of Western Europe. But to the results of either order, the first and cardinal condition is to have ascertained the fact, whether the civilization did, or did not, exist.

The other fundamental question, as to its nature. or degree, would be found prolific of still larger elucidation. For to measure any one degree must presuppose a general scale, which amounts, in this case, to a complete theory of civilization and human history. And then, again, to recognise such theory in the actual developments of a given society, it is indispensable to invoke a philosophy of historical evidence and interpretation. Yet all these principles we are forced to glance at, to bring the question to any issue. It is precisely for want of such a procedure that Irish history is still half-fabulous.

The leading inquiries then are these, in order: 1st. Had Ireland, at any time, from say the first to the twelfth century, a civilization in the proper sense, or at least superior to the rest of Europe? 2d. And if she had, what was its absolute extent, or as compared with the current standard of the present day?

To answer the first, we should begin by defining the thing inquired about. Civilization, then, is the education whether of a special society, or of the entire race. It commences, therefore, in the social

as in the intellectual being immediately after its independent existence. In this sense, of course, it exists in all communities at all times. But it is only when the collective mind attains that ripeness, that self-consciousness, which the law considers, in the individual, to be the age of responsibility, that its grade of culture gets the name of civilization; just as civilization attains maturity, that is to say, social manhood, with the age of reason, that is, of science, in society. Discarding here, then, this last degree, as beyond the province of the present inquiry, the previous social evolution may be divided into two periods. We shall name them the Unconscious and the Conscious Civilization, or, synonymously, the Infant and the Adolescent. The latter is the period of political constitutions, of æsthetical arts, and of inchoative science; the former, that when all these things are still spontaneous and rudimental.

To which description belongs the condition of the Irish nation, at the time in question?

To the earlier, the Infant epoch, responds the English, and, indeed, the general opinion. The Irish had no political organization of the entire people. They had at best but a hierarchy of chieftains, an organization of personality, and plunder under the name of tribute. They had manifestly no arts, excepting music and poetry, and these but in a primitive condition. Of science, in fine, they were destitute utterly. In short, so far were they from civilization, of even the Conscious or second stage, that they had not yet the institution that gives it origin, and also name; for, except Dublin, which seems besides to have been, from earliest times, a foreign colony, the Irish had not a single city of any consequence throughout the island. They lived dispersed over plain and mountain as agriculturists, and, more commonly, shepherds; they were, therefore, not indeed quite savages, but still barbarians. This, we say, is the most general opinion outside of Ireland.

The Irish deny all this indignantly, and denounce it calumny; and the scholars of impartial Europe, and more especially of France, are coming to yield some countenance to the protest. They appeal to the frequent testimony of contemporary writers; to the records of their literature, of their arts, and of their laws. Let us briefly take the deposition of those monumental writings.

AUTHORS.

Selecting the best informed, the most ancient, we believe, is Caesar, who says that the Druids (as well of Ireland, of course, as of Gaul and Larger Britain) had a knowledge of Greek letters, and employed the language for public records. The passage has, however, been