surplice fees, and Queen Ann's Bounty money, and until very lately did not Your's &c. ST. G. A. WILLIAMS.

exceed 50%.

Caernarvon, Jun. 26th, 1833.

In addition to these cases, Mr. Cotton, of Bangor, has been obliged to tax Mr. Johnes with inaccuracy for his statements respecting him.

The township of Winlaton, in the parish of Ryton, was, in the early part of last month, constituted a separate Rectory, by order of the King in Council; and the Rev. C. Thorp, the Warden of the University of Durham, resigned the same immediately. The new Rectory is in the gift of the Bishop of Durham.

The Dean and Chapter of Durham have directed tithes of the value of 251, a year to be ceded to the curacy of Castle Eden, in the county and diocese of Durham, a living not in their patronage, and tithes of a like amount to the curacy of Monkwearmouth, not being in their patronage, both under the provisions of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Act.

Some valuable books have been presented by Sharon Turner, Esq., Dr. Cooke, and others, to the library of the new University.

}

THE Editor trusts that the statement in p. 210 of the last number did not escape attention. It appears that the dissenters themselves do not> claim above three and a half millions out of fourteen millions of popus. lation. The dissenting journals content themselves with the comfortable reflexion that though they can claim no more, there is a delightful number of persons who are without any religion at all, and who, though they may be numbered among churchmen, give no strength to the church. Indeed, one of these amiable journals remarked the other day, that every one who has no religion at all is to be set down as a churchman! They do not yet venture to affirm the converse proposition. Still, after they have said their worst, it appears that when brought to facts, all the monstrous delusions which have been played off on the public disappear per force, and it is confessed, however reluctantly, that Dissent cannot, even in her boldest mood, pretend to claim more than three and a half millions. The "Standard" thinks, and very ably assigns. reasons for thinking, that, at the highest, the dissenters cannot be two millions, while a very able writer in this Magazine has given his reasons for reducing the number still lower. One thing is remarkable as con-? firming his conclusions, which is, that the dissenters, in reasoning ou the subject always either explicitly or implicitly refer to towns. They are quite right as far as the fact goes; ie. what strength they have is in towns, where the accommodation is often very insufficient in the church; but nothing can be more delusive than the argument so constantly used by them, that as the proportion of dissenters to churchmen is so-and-so in the town or city of it is so every where. It may

also be asked with perfect confidence, whether, even in towns where the circumstances are at all tolerable for the church, there is any increase of dissent, or whether the clergy of such places feel any reason whatever to fear such increase; whether, in a word, dissent is on the increase any where.

That the number of those who are without any religion is lamentably great, is not questioned, although the dissenting journals magnify it, because they are anxious to make the church appear as weak as they can. To whom the reproach belongs, and whether they who boast of the superiority of their powers and system over those of the church, and who doubtless are not impeded by the regulations which often prevent the building of churches, are not the most obnoxious to the charge of neglect, are questions which cannot be treated here. In a religious point of view the subject is one calculated to cause the bitterest regret. But as the dissenters have of late been magnifying their numbers and strength for political purposes, let their own admissions be carefully noted. By the late population returns there are fourteen millions in England, and of these the dissenters themselves claim only threeand-a-half. Are three-and-a-half millions (or rather two at most) to dictate to ten-and-a-half (or rather twelve), and to demand, in the most imperious manner, that everything shall be arranged according to their orders?

The bringing forward this subject, and the exposure of the style and feelings lately resorted to by the dissenting journals, have of course drawn down torrents of reproach on this Magazine. The bringing down the number of the dissenters is indeed, as it appears, an unpardonable offence, especially at this season of triumph to dissenters. This is satisfactory enough; and the awkward attempts again at Tu quoque shew completely how just the other charge made in this work, and the rebuke of the revilings of the dissenting journals, are felt to be. The Congregational Magazine for last month is very amusing in its supposition, that visible trepidation is displayed in the January number of this Magazine at "Fiat Justitia's" hint that the British Magazine might " be paid in its own coin," i. e. by bringing from the works of churchmen, attacks on the church. How any trepidation could be felt at the threat that that should be done which has been done by dissenters a dozen times over, (for example, by a Mr. James, at full length,) it is left to the ingenuity of the Congregational Magazine to explain. As to any thing else which it says, it is really hardly worth notice. It accuses a writer in this Magazine of all sorts of unfair use of dissenting journals, but does not give one single instance. Till this is done, general abuse can have no weight. With respect to the church and dissenting authorities alluded to, a very few words will surely suffice to set the question in its proper light. When asked to whom the dissenters can refer among churchmen as proclaiming great faults in the church system, it is always the same list

The "Patriot” of Feb. 13th, is even more than usually illtempered and abusive on this matter. It is now trying to mystify the matter by mixing up the number of dissenters in Ireland, but it will not do.

VOL. III.-March, 1833.

2 Y

Messrs. Nihill, Acaster, and Riland; to whom the Congregational Magazine now adds Lord Henley, Beverley (before he left the church), Dr. Wade (!!!) (is it possible that any decent journal can refer to Dr. Wade?) to say nothing of the Christian Observer, the Record, or British Critic, for even that has of late made some startling admissions.' Dissenters, in short, refer to persons to whom the great mass of churchmen demur as evidence. In bringing the evidence of persons belonging to any body against that body, there are two very distinct questions to be looked at. The first is, does their testimony relate to facts? If so, and if their character is good, their testimony must be admitted. Now no one alleges any thing against Messrs. Nihill, Acaster, and Riland, and therefore, undoubtedly, if they bring facts against the church, which they have had opportunity of knowing as clergy, their testimony must avail against the church, as far as the facts go. If they testify, for example, that the numbers of churchmen, within their knowledge, are rapidly decreasing, that the number of communicants in their churches is far less than it was, that the standard for admission to orders is, as they know, far lower than it used to be, that there are no societies established to spread religious books among the church poor, or to educate their children, &c. &c., these facts, if they are alleged, and proved, must certainly go against the church. But if, secondly, the testimony of members of any body is brought against that body, in matters of opinion, the case is widely different. Their opinion is only good as the opinion of individuals, unless proof can be alleged that the mass of the body agrees with them, for the real question is altogether what evils are felt and admitted by the body to exist in it. Now what proof, or shadow of proof, can the dissenters bring that any considerable body of clergy or churchmen agree with Messrs. Nihill, Acaster, and Riland? What proof can they give that any considerable number of clergy ever saw the works of any one of these gentlemen? The writer of these lines has been unfortunate enough to spend his full proportion of time, at least, in considering such subjects, and he can truly say that he certainly never saw Mr. Nihill's, and he cannot remember having seen Mr. Acaster's work: what he knows of them, he knows by the extracts from them in dissenting publications. Mr. Riland's he has certainly seen, but he is perfectly sure that it represents the opinions of very few persons, except 1. Mr. Riland himself, and that it has had very little circulation among the clergy. With respect to Dr. Wade and Mr. Beverley, he will not make a single observation. The dissenters are quite welcome to make any use they can of such authorities as these. As to the "Christian Observer" and the "Record," it is freely admitted that as each represents the opinions of a party in the church, admissions against the church made in them may just as fairly be taken as admissions on the part of the party which they represent, as the Baptist Magazine, for example, can be cited to shew the sentiments of the body to which it is supposed to belong. With respect, finally, to the "British Critic," although it is painful to the writer to speak on the subject, he will simply say that three articles in it, two on Church Reform, and one on Education, have given such offence (a stronger word might be used) to the party whose opinion it was supposed most nearly to represent, as to threaten serious injury to the circulation

of the work.* On the other hand, with respect to the sources referred to for accounts of the dissenters, as was stated in the last number, the Baptist, Congregational, and Evangelical Magazines, and the Eclectic Review were referred to in good faith as accredited organs of the dissenting body, and it was inquired whether they were not acknowledged as such. All that one gets in reply to this is a statement, that the Congregational Magazine is a private undertaking, and a roundabout admission that it is in small circulation. Now if it is meant distinctly that this Magazine is disavowed, or even not esteemed by the Congregationalists, and has very little circulation among them, of course it is unfair to refer to it. But it would be very advantageous to know this precisely, for one wishes to know to what to refer for accurate information.

1

One thing the dissenting journals seem entirely to overlook. There are certain facts respecting the external condition of an established church which are matters of perfect notoriety. The number of ministers, the demand for church room, the system of patronage, the independence of the teacher on the taught, and a hundred other things of the same sort may be known by those who wish it by mere asking very often by parliamentary returns. It is for the analogous information to this that churchmen refer especially to dissenting journals. The condition of the ministers, their dependence on their flocks, the power exerted over them, their frequent removal for no fault, the quarrels arising from elections, or particular modes of appointment (as at Braintree and Gosport), and other particulars of a like nature, are what we wish to gain from these periodicals. Their opinions, except here and there, are of little matter; the facts and the feelings produced by the state of things among them are of the greatest. It is for facts consequently, not for opinions, that we wish to know where to look without fear of being misled or misleading others.

་ ་ ་

As to the concluding threat in the Congregational Magazine, that it will not hesitate if need be, to resort to personal attack, the assurance was quite superfluous. No one ever supposed that such works would hesitate about resorting to personalities, and it was quite as useless as it was superfluous. They against whom the threat is levelled beg the Congregational Magazine to begin whenever it pleases. Of such weapons it will, of course, have the entire and exclusive use, and the writers need have no fear of giving pain. What they can say will be matter of "utter indifference.

The Congregational Magazine still insists, in speaking of the spirit and language of church publications, that the Quarterly, Blackwood, and Fraser, should be taken as fairly representing the feelings of the church, although each of these is a political and literary, not a religious journal, and not under the influence of the church in any way. The articles on religious subjects in these journals are very few. Blackwood is a Scotch journal, in which, perhaps, no clergyman writes, often edited and written, probably, by Presbyterians, and certainly containing, within the last three years, some very bitter and unjust articles against the church and clergy. As to Fraser, can any connexion whatever be established between that work and the clergy? It has been said before, most truly, that the church has no influence over the Quarterly; and it has been said, with equal truth, that in the tone and spirit of that journal, there is nothing of which the church need be ashamed.

CHURCH REFORM. No. IV.

PART I.

WE have advanced, since the first of these papers appeared, a fearful step, and now know what Church Reform is to be, long before the disputants about it have settled what it ought to be. What may be the feelings of those who, as friends of the church, have been calling out for something to be done, when they observe that Earl Grey founds his argument on the admissions by the friends of the church that there are grievous deficiencies which require remedy, they alone can judge. But, to do this class of Church Reformers justice, few of them ever dreamt of measures like those now proposed for the Irish Church. It surely cannot be doubted that they will now take their stand, however late, by the side of their brethren, acknowledge their own want of foresight, and allow that they who resisted change were in the right. Things have turned out in one respect as was predicted. All which the Church Reformers were wanted for was to admit that reform was wanted. They were never to be allowed to say what was wanted. They only deceive themselves, if they think that the church offering to undertake anything itself, would have prevented final measures. They have already done the only work that they would ever have been allowed to do. Church reform, in short, is determined by political circumstances.

In considering the measures proposed about the Irish branch of the church, there is great difficulty, for it is the professed and steady purpose of this magazine to avoid politics; yet, in discussing and opposing a plan of government, it necessarily lays itself open to the charge of partizanship. There is no remedy against this charge as coming from the uncandid. The candid and just must judge whether the tone is that of a political partizan. And they are requested to refer to the article on the works on church reform printed for last month, though it could not then appear, and left standing now in order to shew the confidence felt in Mr. Stanley's declarations. In good truth, whatever may be a man's politics, no one, who thinks that there is still anything to lose, can help feeling the strongest desire that the course of government might be such that he could conscientiously support them against that dreadful and detestable party which wishes at one fell swoop to brush away all that we have held most dear. But there is one wish stronger yet than this, and that is, the wish to obey the dictates of conscience, and oppose bad principles, from whatever quarter they come. In what follows, then, the writer's sole aim will be to shew on what principles the Irish Church Reform Bill is founded, to make little or no reference to the persons by whom it is proposed, and certainly not to impute any motives to them. Indeed, some persons, it is only fair to say, imagine that in bringing in this plan, ministers are actually doing the best they can for the Irish Church in the present circumstances, and are only compelled to do so much. That Irish members look for more is certainly true. There are persons who already avow that they will support any minister who will seize the tithe fund (now to be formed) for the poor.