merely Christians but deists, this position can never be tenable. So long as our very political existence as a nation depends upon the will of a God, so long do we owe to that God the same collective homage which we pay to him in silence, and in our own chambers for his individual mercies and protection. And how can this duty be discharged except by some regulated and certain form of worship-aud what is this but a national church? Thus far unassisted reason would guide man. But man is not left to reason only, he has other guides to direct him, which we, for one, will never reject. We will not reject the experience of past ages-we will not throw on one side the revealed word of God. We do not believe the history of man to be a series of fictions, or the Bible à tissue of philosophical fables. We do not believe that all other generations were fools, and that we alone are wise; or that a nation can long exist as a nation whose government is directed solely according to human theories, unsupported and unsanctified by a national religion. Till we have come to this conviction we will never cease to uphold a national church.

Are we singular in these opinions, or is the argument we have adduced only a sophism raised by the parties opposed to the church with a secret hope of overthrowing that establishment, and exalting themselves on its ruin?

But suppose for the moment that the church were overthrown, what denomination of Christians would be able to assume its place? Which is the sect so distinguished by its superior piety, humility, and learning that all others, by common consent, would yield to its claim? Would not this be sowing the wind to reap the whirlwind? Would not this very event give rise to animosities ten times more violent, heart-burnings more bitter, jealousies and strifes more furious and unchristian than have ever been directed against the church? Look to the feuds which at this moment exist among the different dissenting congregations, and let that answer the question.

Let us try the claim of the church of England by another test-by numbers; and what society of Dissenters can compare with it? We do not rely much on an arithmetical argument, but it is one mainly in fashion at the present day.

As we said before, this is not merely a party question, it is one of general importance of universal application, and on which men ought to speak plainly without any reference to politics. We have always upheld the cause of legitimate liberty, but we will not side with the advocates of licentious disorder. We lent our best aid to the cause of Reform, but will as steadily oppose the march of revolution.

We have been led into this train of thinking by the recent debates in the House of Commons, as well on the general question of church government as also on the petitions of the Dissenters to be admitted to the universities, and on the claim of the London University to the privilege of granting degrees. Of course the men of Oxford and Cambridge have armed themselves in support of what they consider their privileges. The principal champions of the respective universities are Mr. Sewell, and Mr. Wordsworth, both men of distinction; possessing bold and vigorous minds, classical imaginations, and acute forcible reasoners. As might be expected a good

deal of feeling is visible in many parts of their contests, and in the warmth of their disputations they are occasionally betrayed into sarcastic observations which would have been better omitted-they detract from the dignity and do not add to the strength of the position which they have chosen. Mr. Sewell's labours embrace both questions; Mr. Wordsworth's pamphlet confines itself to the admission of Dissenters to the universities. We wish that Mr. Sewell had done the same. We wish too, that Oxford and Cambridge had abstained from offering any opposition to the prayer of the London University. In the first place the yielding this point would in all probability have silenced the claim they have since made for their admission to the universities. Concession might have produced conciliation. In the next place we consider their opposition to the prayer of the University of London, not merely injudicious but unjust.

It is injudicious for two reasons: because they assume to themselves a right which they do not possess; and secondly, because it draws on them suspicions which we do not believe they deserve.

Their opposition is founded on the ground that no religion is taught at the University of London.

-

Now we are ready to admit that with many this is a great objection to the system of education pursued there: but how do the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge acquire the right of raising the objection. They are perfectly distinct; they have no young men drafted off from London, to exhibitions or scholarships in their respective colleges. If it were so the case might be very different; but they themselves carefully avoid and studiously disclaim any communion with the offending body. But it is said they will grant degrees, similar in name to those conferred at Oxford and Cambridge. Is there any reason why they should not, even without a charter? What is a degree? A certificate that the graduate has passed a certain examination in particular branches of learning under competent masters. Is there any thing to forbid the heads of the seminaries of Homerton or Hoxton, or of any private school in the kingdom, from conferring any certificate they may think fit on their pupils? Or is there any magic in the two letters B.A. or M.A.? After all they are only symbols of titles and of honour; and these, like money, derive all their value from the mint in which they are coined. But let us analyze the objection a little closer. A young man has studied medicine under able masters at the London University, and is considered by them competent to commence his practice. What say the universities?-Do not give this young man his certificate of merit. Why? Is he not a good surgeon ?-Oh yes; but we do not know whether he goes to church or chapel. They might as well say, give no prize for poetry or painting, because the candidate is ignorant of Chaldaic or Sanscrit.

Again: this degree, about which so much is said, is only a vabat quantum privilege. It is but an initiatory step to be consummated by the intervention of some other body. The degree does not necessarily admit the graduate to holy orders; nor does it ensure his call to the bar-much less his practice as a physician. It is, as we said

'

before, merely a letter of recommendation; and till we are convinced that Oxford and Cambridge are the only institutions whose introduction is to be attended to, we shall be of opinion that the same liberty ought to be generally extended. The world will soon attach its proper value to each distinction; and nothing is more easy than for each graduate to append to his title to the name of the university or college of which it was granted.

But are the universities jealous of the uninitiated? Are they afraid to enter into a comparison with the learning and talent of the Dissenters? Would they exclude others from advantages they enjoy? This has been hinted; but, as a member of the university, we indignantly repel the insinuation. We believe that the universities would accept with delight any challenge to so honourable a contest. believe that no mean jealousy has actuated them in the course they have pursued, either towards the London University, or in their opposition to the admission of dissenters to their institutions. But let Mr. Sewell speak for his class :

We

66 Nothing would more rejoice the heart of any one interested in the welfare of this country, but most of all in its religion, than to find the dissenting body united in a rivalry of learning with the Church of England. And let the rivalry be open and decided. The colours different-the course the same. It is a manly and a noble emulation, in which we should contend as friends, and rejoice in each other's victories. We want no mouopoly of learning-God forbid! God forbid that we should not rejoice at the names, which dissenters can produce stamped with the honours of knowledge!"

We could have written much on the subject of the admission to the universities, but prefer quoting the following passages. We perfectly agree with the sentiments expressed there-the spirit they breathe is equally worthy of the philosopher and Christian:

"And if improvement is still to be made, it must be made not by an abandonment of the formal part of our system, but by an encouragement and extension of its spirit. We must cherish, not destroy. But (it is the point to which I have been leading) the admission into our body of dissenters from the established church must prove its immediate destruction. It must be so for this reason: The University of Oxford is happily not an enlightened body. It sprung and received its support from a strong and earnest spirit of devotion. All its early statutes and foundations were most deeply imbued with religion. Its motto is, 'The Lord our light.' And, thank God, this has not yet been changed for the present generation."

"We are, thank God, a religious body-and by his blessing will continue the same. For in addition to such habits of thought as many may deem to be prejudice, we have certain other principles and reasons for desiring to constitute religion a most vital and prominent part in our system of moral education. You have lamented the unenlightened state of our minds in this enlightencd age. And one light has fallen, not from Heaven, upon the eyes of the present generation, which to us is total darkness. We do not think it possible, we could not even attempt to make men good without endeavouring to make them Christians. We cannot understand a scheme of moral control, or moral perfection, in which religion, fixed, definite, positive religion, is left out."

Such would be also our answer to any one who purpose to abolish the religious character of an university education. But it is proposed M.M.-102. 4 P

still to preserve religion, and yet admit students of all persuasionswe fear it is practically, is morally impossible.

We commenced this article with professing our attachment to the established church; we shall conclude with a quotation from Mr. Wordsworth's pamphlet, which contains truths we feel to be irresistible. This shall be our apology, should we be accused of illiberality of sentiment. If the universities are thrown open, we peril the existence of our national church; and if the church should fall, we have nothing left but national irreligion-we dare not risk the experiment-nor can the Dissenters themselves, if we trust their own declaration, expect more than we would concede them. They have wealth, let them establish their own colleges. They have talent, let them be the foremost in the honourable contests of literary, scientific, and religious exercises. They are valuable members of the state, let them show their love to their couutry, to their own body, not by stirring up dissension, but by promoting peace

"On the consequent and inevitable modification of the present academic system of religious instruction but few observations are requisite. The case is analogous to that of religious worship, and the simple objection to these theories, when translated into practice, is-that they are impossible. We are told that religious instruction may be given without reference to controversy, or, in plainer terms, without a recognition of any one characteristic and essential feature of Christianity. And this is called religious instruction! But we have not been told what honest man would give, or what pious man would receive such religious instruction as this. Still, if the thing were possible, this, truly, is the relief which with such ostentatious condescension we vouchsafe the dissenters!-to starve their children on the beggarly elements of a negative and deistical Christianity! My Lord, if dissenters are to be recognised as dissenters, if they are to have a voice in the government of the university, and a share in the collegiate endowments-and this our concession involves-they must also and ought to be educated as Dissenters. They would indeed have achieved a splendid conquest, if their triumph should consist in this—that their right of conscience should be violated! No, my Lord, their children must now be educated, and educated in dissent: and not merely so educated, but educated also by Dissenters.

"And thus we are brought to suppose, as in active and practical existence, what we just now deprecated as too appalling to be possible. A few moments ago, we should as soon have expected a Dissenter "to ask for a rectory, as to obtain or seek a fellowship." Here, however, he now presents himself to us, uninvited and unexpected, and not merely invested with the preliminary attributes of a fellowship, but exercising the functions of an instructor, which by our very constitution suppose him to be enjoying a fellowship, though not implied in its enjoyment.

Encouraged by this favourable result of an inauspicious prophecy, and having sought and obtained what seemed incredible, he will now proceed boldly on his career, and when arriving at the brink of his statutable superannuation, he will seek to qualify himself, by receiving ordination from some peculiar and appropriate authority, to demand a continuation of this his collegiate privilege; and when the lapse of years, and the opportunities of his position, shall have made it more expedient, he will then be prepared to denounce the inconsistent and intolerable iniquity, by which he is excluded from the ecclesiástical patronage of a college, in which he has been engrafted and incorporated as a member?"

MEETING OF THE DELEGATES.-No. II.

(TRANSLATED FROM THE M. S. OF AN UNIONIST.)

ON Thursday morning we received the following note from the Chillwell Unionists, requesting us to attend two days earlier than we had appointed. It was directed, "too The larned Gentlemen diligetes, at the Line Inn, wot opened our Unien,”—and read as follows:

"Deer Diligetes,

6

"We are geting on beter then bargin, we have teckin in the Thief' and the Times', an are geting great inlitenment on Pollyticks. Jos. Bole can now spokefy, and grows larned, we want you to cum an put us in a way, then we shall du, we are trew to the cose as lines, an we are bent on FREDUM, for our childers's seks, we do our eckersise every hopurtewnitety, I Remen

Yours in Unien,

JOHN SILLYGUMS, Chareman.”

We were soon assembled at the Lion Inn tap-room, busily preparing ourselves for the evening's task, by drinking, eating, smoking, and chalking up a long shot, which we knew would be paid out of the Union fund; and, as Dick said, would only be depriving the yokels of a musket less. After having had thirty papers of tobacco, and eighteen quarts of ale, amongst six of us, we began to grow loquacious.

"I say, Dick," said the old shoemaker, addressing the player, "I've felt dev'lish savage ever sin that nite as we opened Chillwell Union, at you saying you would spout me for half a gallon of ale; now, I've been studying lately, an as there's only six of us here, I'll just hev you for a dry shilling.'

66

Agreed upon, Neddy," answered the player, "providing we shall both spout on a new subject, and it shall be left to these four to decide which of us is the best spouter for good ideas, strong language, sound sense, sublime conceptions, magnitudinal arrangements, and general political knowledge.'

first."

Agreed on," said Ned, an we'll toss up to see whose to begin

The lot fell on old Ned, and another minute found him upon the table, ready to enter the list with the far-famed eloquent Dick, the broken-down player.

"Gentlemen," began Ned, rubbing his elbow previously, "Gentlemen," rubbing and grinning, "you will excuse me a moment while I pull my coat off, I've gotten either a flea or a bug biting me most dev'lishly, an it may confuse my idees."

This inconvenience was removed, and he again commenced in good earnest thus:

Gentlemen, I have long sat as a spectator in the play-house of Polites, and have seen hypocritical march forth in the mask of sin