growing subservience of our church to societies, and their gradual tendency to absorb all the episcopal functions, if not the whole power and functions of the church at large. But the subject is beset with difficulties of the most tremendous kind. The most self-confident head, while it sees the evil, ought to feel no shame in avowing the difficulty of finding the practical remedy; and the least experienced can see that grounds of hostility, offence, anger, and evil, must occur at every step in treating the subject. Still, whether here or elsewhere, it is clear that it must, and will very soon, be discussed, and most fully.

THE METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY AND DR. PYE SMITH.

THERE can be no doubt that the agitating dissenters are very curious, unintelligible people, in some of their movements. One of the strangest which they have lately exhibited is as follows:-It is said that the newly chartered Metropolitan University, on the motion of Dr. Arnold, who is a member of it, adopted, though by a very small majority, the resolution that in the examination for B.A. degrees, candidates should be required to construe either one of the gospels, or the Acts, in Greek, and to have a competent knowledge of Scripture history. Now how, where, when, why, or which way, this could hurt the dissenters or their cause, (especially if that cause is, as they say, all built upon Scripture,) no one can devise. There was to be no reference to the doctrines of any particular denomination. The examination might be conducted by a Baptist, or an Independent, or any body else among the dissenters, as well as by a churchman.

However, if the papers are right, they waxed very wroth; and the large minority in the senate thereupon stirred and made a riot. Some internal proceedings took place which one does not understand, from not knowing the constitution of the body; but, finally, reference was made to the Home Secretary, (!) to ask the crown lawyers (!) whether it was not against the charter (!) to examine in this way-i. e., whether such a monstrous sin against civil and religious liberty should be committed, as seeing whether a young man, before being declared B.A., could construe the Greek Testament, and knew the facts in scripture history. Lord John Russell, according to the papers, has sent the question back to the senate; whether accompanied by Sir John Campbell and Sir Robert Rolfe's opinions or not, we do not learn. Now really all this does seem marvellously unintelligible; but it is to be supposed that there are depths and mysteries in dissent which the uninitiated cannot penetrate. What can it be? Is a man not likely to be so intense a Baptist, or so vehement an Independent, because he knows that David did not live before Moses-that Judea is not in Spainthat the ten tribes were not carried to Babylon, and that Saul was not the last king of Israel; or, again, because he can make the nominative agree with the verb, and the adjective with the substantive, in construing St. Luke or St. Matthew? Is a knowledge of facts and of grammar, a religious test, a yoke too heavy for the free shoulders of dissent to bear? But are ancient chronology and history to be ta

booed, in this very novel line of study marked out by the enlightened dissenters? If not, why on earth should the ancient history in the Old Testament, almost the only remnant of authentic history relating to the East, be forbidden? What sort of work do they think they will make of history and chronology without it? One may really waste hours in conjecture, and, after all, be quite wide of the mark; and there is nothing for it but to conclude as one begins, that the agitating dissenters are very curious people indeed, when they are mortally alarmed at the notion of their sons being asked to construe the Greek Testament, and answer a few questions in the ancient history contained in the Bible.

There is one very pitiable exhibition connected with this matternamely, poor Dr. Pye Smith's letter. This unfortunate gentleman gave himself very much to Hebrew, Greek, and theological studies for many years, and (as a natural fruit of such an endeavour to attain learning) either lost, or never got, the furious spirit of dissenting hate against churchmen; he even was so wicked as to maintain something of a kindly intercourse with clergy. This could not be tolerated; and now, in the decline of life, the political dissenters, thinking that his character and name have more weight than those of any one else among them, parade him on every occasion; and he has written, on two or three occasions, letters which could not but destroy a higher reputation than Dr. Smith's, for either abilities or right feeling. There was a pamphlet, some two or three years ago, in which we saw the sad spectacle of an elderly man renouncing the kind feelings of former years, trying to lash himself up into extreme bitterness against the clergy, and uttering the most wild and unjust calumnies against their moral character. This last year, when Mr. Hume was likely to lose Middlesex, poor Dr. Smith was again dragged forward to write a letter to the dissenters, not only advocating Mr. Hume, but absolutely justifying the doctrine that a man who has no proper sense of religion is still quite a fit person for the legislature of a nation. And now he is actually again put forth, to use, if possible, more weak and pitiable sophistry, to shew (for it comes to that) that it is a very bad thing for young men to be able to construe the Greek Testament, and to know scripture history, or to have their thoughts directed to acquiring such knowledge. As, of course, there is no possible argument which can be brought against the thing itself, Dr. Smith is obliged, the whole way through his letter, to reason against things as little connected with the proposition as the man in the moon. For example, he says that the proposed examination is very bad, because, a young man's being examined in this way does not prove that he studies the scripture daily for religious purposes, No doubt. And Dr. Smith must know very well that he might just as well have said that the proposed examination is very bad, because frost and snow are very cold, or because he was going out to dinner. These things have just as much to do with the question as what he alleges. It is really sickening to be obliged to ask, whether a man's knowing how to construe the Greek Testament is to prevent his being religious; or whether knowing scripture history will hinder his reading the Bible. Again, Dr. S. says, just in VOL. XIII.-Feb. 1838.

2 D

the same way, that the examination is very bad, because it is a sad error to think that a man is taught religion by having a few hours in a week devoted to technical instruction. Who said that he was? What, again, can this prove against the proposed system, any more than saying that St. Paul's is a very large church, or that the Royal Exchange was burnt last week? Did the Metropolitan University profess to teach religion at all? Did they say that this examination would do it?

Surely it is pitiable to see a person, whose love of learning, at all events, (whatever judgment may be passed by the sound critic on his works,) and whose good feelings, as evinced in former days, lead one to think of him with kindness, thus compelled, by his situation, and the system (the free system) under which he lives, (for surely these are not willing movements on Dr. Smith's part,) to come forward and (to the certain injury of his character) defend the worst causes by the most sad arguments. The last sentence of his letter is really quite painful. He expresses his gratification, poor man, at being allowed to state his opinion! just as if any person of common discretion and feeling would not rejoice at not being exposed to so doing; because, say what he would, he must give great offence to some, and be misunderstood by more.

If the dissenters (after Dr. Arnold, too, a tolerably ardent advocate for religious freedom, has carried the point of requiring those who are to be sent forth with an academical title to know how to arrange the Greek words in the New Testament according to grammar, and to know the facts in the Bible) should succeed in compelling the University to give up the point, and positively disclaim any connexion with the Old and New Testament, to forbid their being named, or any knowledge of them hinted at within the walls of the new University, it will, indeed, be a splendid triumph for University and dissenters also.

EMBER DAYS.

SEVERAL letters have appeared lately in this Magazine complaining that it often happens that some of the bishops do not ordain at the four proper seasons appointed by the church, and that, consequently, the writers cannot comfortably use the prayer ordered by the church to be used at that season in all congregations. It is, therefore, as well to say a very few words on the subject, not for the purpose of excusing needless irregularity or disobedience to the laws of the church in the highest class of church officers more than in others, but for the sake of pointing out the reason and the justification for what they do in many cases, and for shewing that really the most scrupulous conscience need have no scruples about the use of the

prayer.

The canon allows the bishop, for urgent reasons, to ordain at other than the specified times. An urgent reason can only mean a sufficient

reason.

Now two or three times within the last three or four years, a conse

cration (which must take place on a festival) has taken place on Trinity Sunday, one of the specified times. Three bishops, besides the archbishop, usually attend. Here, then, are four bishops, on each occasion, prevented, by an urgent cause, from ordaining on the specified day.

Again, take the very last occasion as an example. The proper day was Sunday, Dec. 24. But every one knows that, as the holy communion is administered on Christmas-day, it is most inconvenient that clergy, whether priests or deacons, (who are, perhaps, assistant curates in large parishes,) should be away from home on that day. Now almost all persons ordained on Dec. 24th must hav ebeen absent from home on the 25th. And it is within the writer's knowledge that three ordinations were, for this (surely an urgent) reason, held on the 17th. He sees, too, by a letter in the January number, that two others (York and Hereford,) and elsewhere, that two more (Lincoln and Winchester,) were appointed for the 17th, and doubtless on the same grounds. Here, then, are seven cases which are quite according to the canon, though coming within the complaint of the various letter writers. The Ely ordination (Dec. 3rd) was probably, and the Chichester (Dec. 21) obviously, altered for the same reason. Doubtless, had one opportunities of inquiring, in many other cases urgent reasons would be found. For deviations without such cause, no defence is made here. Whoever deviates from a rule without cause, does harm, and the more, the higher his station. But what is meant is, that there is much more frequently good cause than people at a distance, not knowing the circumstances, and being of anxious minds, remember or think of.

Now, as to the use of the prayer, it may be affirmed, without fear, that there are always several ordinations taking place on the appointed days, and thus, even if our own diocesan's ordination does not, we have sufficient ground for knowing that the prayer is not used without meaning. Every one resident in London is aware that (except for such causes as above assigned) both the Archbishop and Bishop of London always have ordinations on Trinity Sunday and the Sunday before Christmas, and latterly the Bishop of Gloucester has frequently ordained at Westminster on those days. These are particularly mentioned merely as being matters so public that any one may know of them. The Bishop of Oxford this year took the 17th instead of the 24th. But the writer believes that the ordinations at Oxford are regularly on the Sunday before Christmas and on Trinity Sunday. This year, when there was such strong reason for a contrary course, one ordination (Gloucester) took place on the regular day, Dec. 24th, as appears from the January number, and very probably there were more, not yet reported.

P.S. Since this was written, the writer observes in the newspaper that another ordination took place on the 24th December-viz., that of the Bishop of Salisbury.

THE EDINBURGH REVIEW-CHURCH RATES.

THE "Edinburgh Review" has done a service, which it by no means intended, to the cause of the church, by bringing Mr. Hale's pub

lications on tithes and church-rates to the notice of the public. It is notorious that the whigs and radicals, the Roman catholics and the dissenters, have been for many years labouring to persuade the common people to entertain a notion that the church of England is, as respects the appropriation of her revenues, illegally constituted. The learned whigs have not had the boldness to assert as much as this in plain terms; they are too well informed and to cautious to commit themselves in this way; but their policy has been of the most subtle and jesuitical character. Their plan has been, just to draw a picture, which is partly true and partly false, of the platform of the ancient Anglo-Saxon church; and then, designating all subsequent changes in the laws of our country (even such as took place five centuries ago) as encroachments made by the clergy upon the rights of the people, to leave their unsuspecting readers and hearers to fall into the snare thus craftily laid, and to take up the persuasion (from which no learned reviewer has the honesty to release them) that the clergy rob the poor of their due, and cheat the rich by requiring them to repair the naves of parish churches. Against this deliberate scheme Mr. Hale has assiduously opposed the arguments which ancient English history supply. As to one of his arguments, that respecting the law of Æthelred, upon which the Edinburgh reviewer has exhausted so much of his learning, Mr. Hale has himself candidly acknowledged that he does not consider it as wholly incontrovertible; and yet, even with this admission, it may fairly be said that it is almost impossible to peruse his essays on the subject of tithes and church-rates without being convinced that he has shewn against those who would appeal to ancient laws as arguments to sanction a different appropriation of church revenues, that they have not ancient law, in any one point, on their side.

THE IRISH NATIONAL SYSTEM OF EDUCATION.

LETTER III.

SIR,-I shall now, as I promised at the conclusion of my last letter, proceed to state what I consider the most practicable means of obviating the objections to the present national system; and while doing so, I shall bring forward a few more facts respecting the state of scriptural education among Romanists in the county of Wexford.

The first and most palpable objection to the system adopted by the national board is this, that it admits peculiar religious instruction to be given in their school-houses. The effect of this rule will appear evident from one simple case. Were I to connect the two schools now in my parish, and which are chiefly supported by me, with the national board, I should be obliged, if the Romish priest of the parish required it, to give up these schools one whole day and a portion of every other day in the week, for the inculcation of Romanism, that is, of what I believe to be false and dangerous doctrines. If I submitted, and submit I must, if my schools became national, my conduct would argue a degree of inconsistency that no honest man ought to be guilty of.