it is doubtless a small and solitary one (humanly speaking)—is, that the reign of this form of antichrist may be prevented by the too easy, ready, and shameless exhibition of its baseness and total want of all that can engage the heart, or affections, or sympathies in its favour.

P.S. Since the above remarks were written, another illustration of them has appeared in the shape of certain extracts from the Bampton Lectures, which have just come out, printed in parallel columns with Dr. Pusey's propositions. They are most signally garbled, not to mention that the compiler of them does not allude to the extracts, larger than his own, which are printed in the "Theological Statements and Thirty-nine Articles compared," from which Dr. Pusey's propositions are mostly drawn, and of which they are a summary. He is content to assert that they are unfairly made, not offering any proof, much less attempting to draw up rival propositions. Besides the repeated insertion of glosses, the passages quoted are, in many instances, altered, transposed, and the most important sentences omitted.

DISSENTERS' LANGUAGE TO GOVERNMENT.

Ir is right for churchmen to see the line taken by the dissenters. The following is a Memorial from some "Scotch dissenters" meeting in the grand metropolis of-Perth! Quid facient domini, &c., &c.? "TO THE RIGHT HON. VISCOUNT MELBOURNE, &c., &c.

"MY LORD, We are happy in having an opportunity of expressing our admiration of the wise and liberal policy pursued by the Cabinet, of which your Lordship is the chief, &c., &c. We rejoice in the increasing support which your Lordship's government is receiving in the Commons' House of Parliament, &c., &c.

"We cannot forget, however, that we are dissenters, &c., &c.

While there are few occur

Let people remember how the case stands at present. On the one side there are the "Elucidations," the "Thirty-nine articles compared with Dr. Hampden," and Dr. Pusey's Preface, bringing definite charges, and his "Present and Past Statements compared." On the other side, there are the "Statements of Christian Doctrine," extracted chiefly from former writings of Dr. Hampden, the "Letter to the Archbishop," the "Pastoral Letter," and the "Specimens," (besides the Inaugural Lecture ;) in short, former writings of Dr. Hampden referred to in order to remove charges brought against later, and an attack on the personal character and theological opinions of the assailants. The charge of garbling, brought against the " Elucidations," has been answered by Mr. Miller; and that advanced in the new pamphlet against Dr. Pusey's propositions is mere assertion. Meanwhile, the "Statements of Christian Doctrine," in two cases, give garbled extracts-on original sin, and on the sacraments-two of the very few extracts from the Bampton Lectures; and the new pamphlet is a mass of garbled extracts. (The "Edinburgh Review's" attempt to prove that Dr. Hampden sets forth the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as distinct from the language which he condemns, in a passage which his opponents are represented to have omitted, and which is really the most offensive proof of an erroneous view, when taken in connexion with the context, will be noticed in a more formal manner, as the writer is informed, elsewhere.) It is presumed that the "Vindication" will offer something like a defence. At present, nothing seems to have been done but putting forth vague statements, earlier than the Bampton Lectures, or later and equally unsatisfactory with them, and blackening Dr. Hampden's opponents by misrepresentation of facts, and attacking their opinions. P.S. Mr. Hull's pamphlet, indeed, which has just appeared, is an exception. The writer cannot agree with Mr. Hull's views; but Mr. Hull always writes like a gentleman and a Christian.

rences that we would more bitterly regret than the necessity of becoming opponents to your Lordship's government; yet there are two things of which we deem it requisite distinctly to apprise you :

I. If anything shall be done to increase the injuries we already suffer, by a new grant of public money for the extension of the church of Scotland, we have good reason to know that enfranchised dissenters, in their respective localities, will feel themselves under the painful necessity of opposing at next election any candidate, however liberal he may otherwise be, who shall have given his vote for such a grant. This dissenters must do, not in the spirit of faction, but in deference to their own religious belief; and we know they will do it, if it shall be found necessary, as soon as their attention is directed to so new and so wanton an outrage on the sacredness of their principles. They can well afford to do it, for were a liberal government to treat them as the petitioners for the grant require them to be treated, it would to them be liberal no more; and it is not the name of the thing called toryism, but the thing itself, to which they are opposed. On the consequences of driving dissenters away from the liberal interest, we forbear to dilate, as we wish to avoid even the appearance of threatening; but your Lordship is well able to judge of these consequences, and our prayer is, that they may be averted.

"II. In the contemplated amount of relief to dissenters, proposed by your Lordship's government, we can on no account acquiesce, except in the way of viewing it in the light of a mere instalment. Why are they (the dissenters) not as free from annoyance on account of their religion as are the other members of the community? Not because their religious peculiarities are dangerous to the state, nor merely because there are things connected with our state churches which ought not to be connected with them, but because the very existence of state churches is incompatible with their rights. This, my Lord, is the radical grievance from which all the rest have sprung, and it is not till this is removed that anything deserving the name of justice to dissenters can be obtained."

THE RECORD.

NOTHING can be better than for two contending parties to be mutually satisfied. The "Record" is exceedingly pleased at being found fault with in this Journal, and this Journal is equally pleased with the way in which the "Record" has noticed the fault here found with it. The one is satisfied at being accused, the other at its accusation being left wholly untouched. Not, indeed, that the "Record" has not said a great deal, and assumed the guise of explaining some things, and defending all the rest. This is all done, indeed, at the length of three or four mortal columns, and goes to the point of showing that, although the greater part of the clergy do not agree with the "Record" doctrines, they do not disagree with them so much as they did, &c. &c. This controversy shall not be pursued, for it is not one on which it is worth while to expend time or attention. All that was said before, which was of any moment, was this-that for some years past, there has been a general disinclination to controversy; that the "Record" newspaper has profited by this indisposition on the part of those who do not hold its doctrines, to load them, not on one, but on every occasion, with the most uncharitable and violent accusations; to denounce them regularly as wholly ignorant of what they ought to know, careless about souls, destroyers of souls, lost in darkness, formalists, legal, full of inveterate hatred to the real gospel doctrine, and combining and conspiring to put it down; to reprobate them, in short, in every way, and to hold them up as worthy of reprobation, as men, and Christians, and ministers of the church; and to set forth these accusations in language which would be reckoned not decent in many even worldly men. When this charge is made, the "Record" is pleased, because, such a charge being made at all, shows that its influence is now reckoned

formidable! as if there were no truth in the adage, that " when dirt is thrown in sufficient quantities, some will stick," whosesoever be the hand that throws it! The charge was made, because it is not decent that such language should be used by any paper professing to speak the sentiments of a body of churchmen, whether great or small, with reference to such ministers of that church as dare to differ from it in opinion. What would, and what ought to be said of this Magazine, or any other journal of the same opinions, if it dared to hold so improper, shameful, and unchristian a course, as to attack, in the same spirit and style of language as that used by the "Record," those clergy who, in all good conscience, hold the opinions of the "Record?" Does it abstain because, if such a spirit could be tolerated, it could find no topics for reviling them, or any other body of men; or because such reviling would not be just as true, and as deserved, (as true, observe, but not one whit more so,) as that which is poured out by the "Record" against the clergy of whom it disapproves? Is this the way to promote peace, or to forward that on which peace must rest-truth? Is it by reviling that we hope to lead those to the truth whom we consider to be in error? But again, the charge was made, because the course pursued by the "Record" will assuredly lead, not only to a breach of charity and to the worst feelings in its readers, but to a renewal of the controversy between those who differ. It may be, indeed, that unjust accusation of error and carelessness has been, for peace' sake, borne longer than the truth would allow already; but still, controversy, except from necessity, among ministers of the same church, is a dreadful evil; and all which can be borne ought to be borne in order to prevent it. But if the clergy who presume to think that learning, and piety, and zeal, and truth, are not monopolized by the "Record" and its friends, find that they are to be held up as deplorably ignorant, and false at the very heart, and their whole teaching as mischievous and evil, they must in justice to that teaching show-as they are fully prepared to do—that it rests on grounds which never have been, and never can be, overthrown. With respect to themselves they will defy the "Record," as to their character and zeal; and they will leave accusations of others to the "Record," and those who think its course a right or Christian one.

Such were the reasons which led to the "Record's" being twice noticed here. All that was necessary has been done. To pursue the subject, or argue about particular statements or phrases, would be a waste of time. But that the "Record" may not say that it is very easy to speak of an accusation as untouched, and yet to take no notice of the reply to it, perhaps a single observation on that reply will show whether silence, as to the rest, does not arise from the motive assigned the uselessness of pursuing the discussion. In defence of his charging those who maintain the old doctrine of the Society with being either "deplorably ignorant or false at the very heart," the writer in the "Record" insinuates (as far as one can understand his longæ ambages) that the ignorance there spoken of was not ignorance of divinity, or human learning, but the ignorance resulting from want of being renewed and enlightened by God's Holy Spirit, which is a

blessing vouchsafed to many who have no human learning. On the supposition that this was the "Record" writer's meaning, let us see what he says: "A man must be either ignorant, or false at the heart, to say so and so." That is, if he is not ignorant, he is false: this was the text. The interpretation is "a man must either be without that knowledge of divine things which is given by God's spirit to the Christian, or false at the heart." That is, if he has the knowledge of divine things which belongs to the true Christian, and yet says so and so, he is false at the heart! If he is a true Christian, and says so and so, he is a very bad man! This, surely, requires no farther comment. This subject of learning is one on which, surely, the "Record" had better be silent. It is easy for all to be learned, when the most ample knowledge of the Gospel system, and of human and divine learning, which can be required, consists of three words, repeated again and again.

One more observation on the "Record's" reply, and only one. The evil-minded race of clergy, of whom it complains, take, it appears, as their motto, "Do and Live," instead of the true and right motto, "Live and Do." Tastes, it seems, as well as opinions, differ. To the writer of these lines, as remembering that our Lord, on being asked what was to be done to inherit eternal life, referred the inquirer to the two great commands of love to Gon and our neighbour, and then added, "This DO AND THOU SHALT LIVE," it certainly does not appear reverential to represent the reverse order of his own precept as the only Christian view of the method of salvation. If there is a class of Christian teachers which says, "Do and Live," and if our Lord has said "Do and Live," is it not just possible that they may so say because, and in the same sense as, he said so-most assuredly not teaching men either to claim the power of doing well by any strength of their own, or to rely on their own deeds or merits for acceptance, when by God's help they have done what they could? But who are the clergy who have taken this as their motto?

With respect to the "Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge," it is very much to be feared that there will be no way of composing the differences, excited and increased deliberately, but by reducing it to a Bible, Prayer-book, Psalter, and Homily Society. This, though said shortly, is not said without long and serious reflexion, nor without seeing that it is a course which will lead to considerable evil. It is said, because there are difficulties in the way of all other remedies, and because it is, and is felt to be, a matter of the highest importance that there should be a society where all clergy can meet and act together as brethren.

SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
(From a Friend.)

To form a nation's early habits in the mould of truth and manliness—so to mingle with the soul the grand and simple elements of piety and moral worth, that they shall ever after be a part of thought and a spring of action-with the knowledge of past events, to rouse imagination and fix the wavering judgment-this is the true scope of popular education. But if the machinery of VOL. IX.-May, 1836.

4 E

education is entrusted to designing or to ignorant men, it may become a fearful engine of perversion, or an active cause of national decay.

In the Number of this Magazine for January will be found a brief account of the colleges of Aberdeen, and of an attempt which was made last year forcibly to unite them, and to subject the composite body to the control of the Provost of the town, and some other persons, appointed by the Home Office, and associated with a few of the university authorities.

The Lord Advocate of Scotland is understood to be engaged in framing an act of parliament for the regulation of all the universities of that country. As the whole system of popular instruction centres in those institutions, it is right that a subject which may be so dealt with as either to augment or wretchedly to impair the virtue and intelligence of the country, should be viewed in its true light by the public.

A report presented some years ago to the King, by a board of commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Scottish universities, forms the professed basis of the measure now in contemplation. The two most prominent suggestions of that Report were, that students should be subjected, before entrance, to an examination of much rigour, and that the property of the universities should be vested, along with extensive authority over all their members, in a lay board, nominated in such a way as to exclude the operation of political feeling in their appointment. Though the Lord Advocate gave notice of a motion for leave to bring in a bill upon this subject, it is withdrawn. The measure will be introduced, as the liberals say, immediately in the House of Lords-perhaps before these sheets see the light. The following are extracts from a paper which has been circulated by the Lord Advocate, as containing the heads of his projected law :

:

A board of royal visitors to be appointed to each university, and to consist of not fewer than five nor more than nine persons. The heads of the respective colleges to be members of the boards of the universities to which they belong. The boards to subsist for five years.

The powers of the board to extend to the determination of all questions which may occur in the universities, as a court of review. They will have power to decide upon all complaints that may be made to them with regard to the discipline of the universities, or administration of the proceeds of property, and the accounts of the universities shall be annually exhibited by them.

The visitors of each university shall be empowered to regulate its government in all its important concerns, whether they relate to instruction, degrees, business, or property; and they shall be authorized to introduce, from time to time, desirable CHANGES with regard to its INSTRUCTION, and to establish such regulations as may appear necessary for that and other purposes, which regulations, when approved of by the Secretary of State, shall subsist until they shall be altered by any board of visitors appointed by his Majesty, or by act of parliament.

The professors in the universities shall retain all the emoluments and other advantages to which they are entitled by the grants by which they hold their professorships. Subject to that provision, the Board of Royal Visitors shall be entitled to make SUCH REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE ENDOWMENTS and professorships of each university as shall seem best calculated to promote the interests of the university, of science, and of learning; and to regulate the duties to be performed by the professors, subject, as in other cases, to the approbation of the Secretary of State.

The board shall have power to unite the two universities or colleges of Aberdeen into one university, consisting of two colleges.

First, then, as to the matter of discipline.-Some of the proposed arrangements seem to have been conceived in utter forgetfulness of what must always and everywhere be the relative duties of teacher and taught. If the students know that there is a superior authority to which they may at all times appeal, and a bounty is thus held forth for insubordination; if the members of the court of appeal are, in learning, in acquaintance with the theory and the still more difficult practice of education, in freedom from bias, prepossession, and proneness to display unwonted and short-lived power, inferior to the parties