persons more capable of judging than himself, in a style likely to be intelligible to young children, and liked by them. The first part goes through the Pentateuch, containing a conversation on each great event; and the second part through the rest of the Old Testament, in a similar manner.

Whychcott of St. John's. 2 vols. London: Wilson. 1833.

Ir is quite out of the way of the British Magazine to notice a collection of papers containing tales not on religious subjects or matters connected with the moral improvement of the people. But this is noticed as a phenomenon, for it contains a paper strongly in favour of the church, and reprobates the falsehoods vented against it. It is passing strange to find this in a work courting popularity. The book is clever, and the author has a great deal of comic power. Two of his University Stories are told with much hu mour; but real names should not be introduced.

Two Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford. By the Rev. W. Sibthorpe Cole. Dover: 1833. 8vo.

MR. COLE presses very strongly the advantage of some practical knowledge of the pastoral duties before taking charge of a parish, and shews very fully his own accurate perception of their extent. He very modestly abstains from adding any plan of his own for effecting this, leaving it to the wisdom of the university to devise such a plan. But is it possible to do so?

A Sermon, Preached at the Visitation of the Lord Bishop of Chester. By the Rev. A. Campbell. London: 1832. 8vo.

MR. CAMPBELL, with great good sense and good feeling, avoids the question of Church Reform, and presses with great force and truth on the clergy the necessity of personal exertion and personal excellence as the best safeguard of the Church.

Essays Designed to afford Christian Encouragement and Consolation. By John Sheppard. London: Whitaker and Co. 1833. 12mo. pp. 368.

THERE is an originality of thought, a piety, a humbleness of mind, a catholic spirit, a degree of reading and observation in every one of Mr. Sheppard's works, on which too high praise cannot be bestowed. He fully maintains this character in the volume at the head of this article. Its object is to cheer men of humble and anxious minds, under the dejection caused by doubt as to the genuineness of their faith, as well as to administer comfort under the more common afflictions of life. There are some phrases (perhaps they may imply some views, but this is far from certain) in which the writer cannot quite agree with Mr. Sheppard. But he sympathizes with him warmly throughout in the general tenour of his work, and feels confident that his earlier essays, as virtually warning men against presumption, by holding up the picture of the doubts and fears of sincere Christians, will be eminently useful. Mr. Sheppard is a dissenter, and yet the writer is not at all inclined to say, Talis cum sit utinam noster esset. On the contrary, his earnest wish for the dissenters (as being the best wish for the Church) is that not their laymen, but even their ministers in general, had Mr. Sheppard's power, knowledge, and spirit.

Fulton and Knight's Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language, greatly improved. Edinburgh: Stirling and Co.; and Whitaker and Co., London.

1833.

THIS seems to be an excellent dictionary, and far more simple in its method of marking pronunciation than the older works on the subject. It is small, cheap, and contains a table of scripture names, and another of classical names properly accented.

REMARKS ON WORKS ON CHURCH REFORM.*

A FEARFUL storm of pamphlets on Church Reform has been spreading itself (and havoc with it) over the land. There is one, however, with much good sense and feeling in it, by the Rev. F. Massingberd, of which a friend of the writer of this paper will give a short account. Then there is one by a gentleman named Stephenson, who says he was once member for Westbury. This gentleman has contrived (what is not very easy) to engage the writer's sympathies in favour of Lord Henley, by the vulgar tone of his sneers, and laboured attempts at scoffing at Lord Henley's saintly notions, &c. &c. This gentleman is quite one of the servile herd of imitators. He does little more than out-herod Lord Henley in his plans, reduce all the bishops and clergy still lower, and strongly urges what be insinuates that Lord Henley only hypocritically hints at. His deep knowledge of church matters and of literature is displayed very frequently, and especially in one note in which he says "How many eminent men have adorned and illustrated the Scotch Church-Robertson, Reid, &c. &c." The fullness of the list is peculiarly striking.

Then "One of the priesthood" has written a pamphlet praising Lord Henley very much, but suggesting that all private patronage must be done away, and placed in the hands of the bishops, and an allowance made in compensation to the patrons, out of the church revenues- -so admirably adequate as they are to their present purpose. The bishop is to be assisted by a council of his chapter, various regulations for which are laid down; but the main one is, that no one is to have a stall till he is fifty-six. Of all ages under the sun, why the learned author has fixed on fifty-six, it is not easy to guess, unless he thinks that seven years' run of a stall, up to a man's grand climacteric, is a fair allowance.

Then "a Churchman" has been remarking on Lord Henley and Dr. Burton. This gentleman suggests diocesan boards to manage the seized chapter and bishop's property, instead of the general one, &c. &c. Has this writer any authority for hinting that Lord Henley's Letter to the King was published with the permission, if not the sanction of the King? Mr. Stephenson, by the way, mentions that a plan noticed last year in this Magazine was actually completed, and that one hundred members of the House of Commons actually did petition the chancellor not to give the bishops the disposal of the small livings!

But all these gentlemen are entirely Dii minorum gentium to Dr. Arnold.

Dr. Arnold, after stating very pleasingly both the beauty of a system which snatches something from the gripe of self and gives it to the common good, and the advantages of an established church, and after pointing out very truly that the church reformers of the present

These remarks (except the note on Mr. Tennison) were printed for the last number, but were not inserted in consequence of a delay in the transmission of the proofs.

day are mostly either church destroyers or self-seekers (i. e. persons who expect to get or save money by church reform), goes on to state that if every thing they ask for should be accomplished, the danger of the church would be the same, and its real evils increased. Afterwards Dr. Arnold says again (page 72) that he holds the evils commonly clamoured against to be quite subordinate evils. Sectarianism he holds to be the great evil; and he proposes to cure it by enlarging our articles to that degree of capacity that all denominations, except perhaps Quakers and Romanists, might belong to the national church -by having ministers of all classes of society and education-because as things are, ignorant and fanatical men will preach-because there are, at all events, some people more ignorant than themselves whom they could teach, and it would be better to have them under control -by having different kinds of worship, at different hours of the day, in the parish church, the Liturgy at one hour, and various other fashions at others, so that the natural love of variety and the different tastes and opinions of different men may be consulted-by making Episcopacy not prelatical, by stopping translations, and seeing that the bishop is only head of a council of lay and clerical members, partly elected by the officers of the parishes-by having general diocesan assemblies by allowing the election of ministers in many cases, and giving the parishioners a check in all-by having lay and clerical officers in every parish to form a body, superintending it with the principal minister.

On the principles here laid down the writer does not intend to say one word. When parties have not one single point of common ground to stand on, when the honest conviction of one considers as excellent what the honest conviction of the other considers as absolutely abominable, dispute would be useless. Besides, if Dr. Arnold had the power of acting on his own suggestions, there would fortunately be no difficulty in knowing what course to pursue. They at least, who think as the writer does, could never be members of a church regulated by Dr. Arnold, and could feel no necessity for even one minute's discussion of the matter. But although no attempt will be made to canvass Dr. Arnold's principles, a few words must be said as to the probable practical effects of such a scheme. It must be asked, whether any man, who looks at human nature, could for a moment suppose, that even a decent quietness could thus be procured that when things were so arranged that every class of opinion, from the fiercest Calvinism down to the lowest Arminianism, from the highest Trinitarianism down to the gulfs of Socinianism,

Dr. Arnold says, that Dissenters may be required to submit to Episcopacy when it will be so much modified, inasmuch as there are Episcopalians who think Episcopacy an essential! He adds, that Episcopalians have consented to such entire changes in the essentials of primitive Episcopacy, that they are manifestly satisfied by retaining the name! The first sentence requires no comment; the second deserves none, as far as relates to the essentials of Episcopacy, it is, however painful it is to say so, wholly contrary to fact. 2 s

VOL. III.-March, 1833.

might be represented in the ministry, any thing could possibly ensue but battles within the church, instead of without the walls. Can Dr. Arnold doubt for a moment that if the principal minister should happily speak the words of soberness and truth in the morning, the uneducated fanatic, whose admission to the ministry Dr. Arnold advocates, would take especial care in the evening to attack every word he had said? Is not a love of controversy and of handling hard points but too prevailing an evil at all times and among all men? Is not the latter especially one of the strong holds of dissent now? And would it be given up then, when the only difference would be, that such a minister, instead of such a chapel, might thus gain popularity? But, again, while Dr. Arnold advocates an endowed establishment, can he forget that as he chuses to have some articles (lax enough to be sure) the hatred of all restraint and the hope of gain will always cause dissent from even the laxest church, and raise up teachers without its walls, who could not, even in his comprehensive plan, be admitted within them? If two uneducated men were admitted in a given parish, and six more thought themselves equally qualified, what is to hinder them from hoisting the standard of dissent?

But does Dr. Arnold really believe that, on the one hand, conscientious dissenters would enter a church which does not feel it a duty to proclaim the great truths of the Gospel plainly, and, on the other, does he, in his hope of bringing many in, forget the many whom he will certainly drive out? Through his whole pamphlet, he speaks indeed with kindliness of those who hold to the church system conscientiously, but he also holds them to be the cause of all the evils, to be as much schismatics as those who are formally so, and he appeals very affectionately to them to give up such views-to give up, in short, all which is most dear and sacred in their eyes.

Dr. Arnold forgets again apparently the declarations constantly made from many dissenting pulpits, that the articles of the church are willingly accepted by the teachers and congregations, and are, in no degree, the cause of dissent.

How strange a notion, one may say in conclusion, is that which Dr. Arnold seems to have of an union of all sects, when it is to be an union without any thing to hold it together, not an union from common hopes of good, common fears of evil, common views as to the promotion of gospel truth. Why, in good truth, is he not satisfied with the present bond which the law gives? When in the assize court the King's proclamation against blasphemy and vice is read, and the law proclaims that Christianity is the law of the land, it would appear that all which Dr. Arnold can reasonably hope for is already done to bring about religious unity.

What one would wish to know would be, does Dr. Arnold purpose, after thus setting the church open, to enforce conformity to it? If he does not, does he suppose that dissent will not flourish just as much as before when the motives to dissent are always the same; or that it will want any ingenuity to find out reasons against connexion with a church which does not proclaim the truth, allows

all sorts of creeds to be taught in its bosom, and all kinds of caprices to be enacted in its temples ?*

To these remarks on the books on Church Reform, it must be added, that it seems quite clear, from the best information, that a Commutation Bill is to be brought in, and it is earnestly to be hoped that, if so, as many secure forms of investment as can be devised, will be permitted. So alone can any safety or any feasibility be given to the measure. Nor can it be much doubted that other measures (i. e. as to the distribution of church property) are also in preparation.† But we have assurances from the Chancellor and Mr. Stanley, (the Bishop of Lichfield adds in his Charge, and from Earl Grey,) that they think church property inalienable. And when three men of as powerful minds as these begin practically to handle the questions of pluralities and non-residence, and the inequalities of church preferment, it is not possible that the truth can escape them, that much which looks well on paper cannot be done except at the expence of greater evils, or of injustice. Within these boundaries, who objects to church reform ?

Such being the state of things, such hosts of agitators handling this great subject, and government very clearly handling it too, let churchmen remember that the church means the laity as well as the

This article was, as before stated, written a month ago, but the writer feels no desire to recall, and no wish to change, any thing which he has said. Nor does he, on farther consideration, feel at all disposed to go any farther into controversy with Dr. Arnold, for the simple reason that they have no common ground to meet upon. The proposals made by Dr. Arnold have (according to the newspapers) been echoed in another place, and unquestionably in a very different spirit, by one of the metropolitan members, Mr. Tennyson. This gentleman is made to declare in one sentence, that he is a friend to the established church, and in the next, that its articles contain a mass of contradictions which are a terrible burthen to the consciences of the clergy, and which ought consequently to be entirely altered! Some persons may be inclined to be angry with Mr. Tennyson; but (even if he did say all this) to be angry with a man for asserting falsehoods out of sheer ignorance, or to think a second time of the opinion on religious matters of a person who professes himself a friend to a church which contains a mass of contradictions in its articles, would be really absurd. Some persons again may be very angry with a gentleman for talking so quietly of altering the articles, and taking it for granted that the clergy would assent to such alteration; but this anger would be more unjust and absurd than the other. After Mr. Tennyson has so clearly stated (according to the newspapers) that he is a friend to the established church, though it contains a mass of contradictions, the whole matter is quite clear, and Mr. Tennyson, instead of meaning to insult the clergy, obviously means to compliment them by supposing, that if the articles were altered as he recommends, it would make no difference to them. Mr. Tennyson is clearly, in short, an utilitarian of the first water, and he likes an established church because, on the whole, it tends to keep things quiet, and then arts and sciences can flourish, and money can be made. It is in his view obviously a man's sacred duty to promote this wellbeing of society. Now, if the first article of the new church, instead of saying that there is only one God, as the present first article does, made a small change, and said that there was no God at all, and if that little change would conciliate a large majority of mankind to the church (and perhaps ere long it might) and thus promote peace, and allow mammon to prosper, would Mr. Tennyson mean to insult the clergy if he said that they would assent to this little change? On the contrary, he would only mean that they acted like men of sense, and that this was their bounden duty. Other people may, no doubt, see the thing differently from Mr. Tennyson; but it is only just to explain how he seems to view it.

†These anticipations are, it seems, or are to be realized.