introduced into your letters, and you take it for granted that your brother is equally so. In this you are much mistaken; the arguments which so much affect you, have long been familiar to me;-to you they have the charm of novelty in addition to the interest connected with every thing of a religious nature. The time may come when you will discover that other motives of a mixed nature (at present unobserved by yourself) have operated upon your mind.

But, think of me as you may in some respects,-class me with the worldly-minded, the self-seeking, the lovers of pleasure, the selfdeceivers, the formalist, &c.; yet, when you look back upon the education we alike received from those dear parents we have lostwhen you recollect how from our very cradles we were led to abhor deceit, and dread the sin of lying, you surely will suspend your judgment when I assure you, that I have deeply thought upon these subjects,-that they have long occupied my attention, and that, after all, I do not consider the body of persons, commonly called "Evangelical," justified in making that schism in the Church which has taken place. That many are men of devout lives I can have no doubt; that many would lay down their lives for the truths-nay, for the conceits they advocate, I can also believe; but I do not regard them, as a body, more upright, conscientious, or apostolical, than their brethren whom you condemn; and, therefore, consider myself under no obligation to follow their example in those things in which their peculiar sentiments are apparent.

I write in too desultory a manner to convince you upon any of the particulars now pressed upon your attention; but be assured, my dear sister, that I have both collected evidence diligently on either side, and endeavoured to compare it honestly; for I feel all the solemn and intense interest in the subject you seem desirous to inspire. Though I have been too much agitated for sober discussion in this letter, yet I can and will go, point by point, with you over this subject; and, therefore, I conjure you to hold your mind open to conviction, and on no account believe you are doing God service by refusing to listen to your brother, because he is not registered among a certain band,—because he boasts of no especial conversion in times past, or present extraordinary illumination. I see plainly, by your letters, you are fearful of allowing your heart and understanding to act; but I beseech you to cast aside these fetters, to stand fast in your own liberty for such a time at least as may enable me to vindicate myself, if not to regain you.

ON THE DISCIPLINE OF THE UNIVERSITIES.

To the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer.

SIR, Observing several most illiberal and groundless charges against the discipline of our Universities, in an article of the Edinburgh Review for October, headed "New University in London," I take the liberty of trespassing on your attention, because several of these charges are

calculated to shake the credit of our ancient Institutions in the opinion of those who have not opportunities, from their own experience, of discovering their fallacy. But it is not merely because the reputation of the Universities is brought in question, but because an object of even greater interest is affected, that I conceive it necessary to expose these flagrant violations of truth. If the fountain be corrupted, the stream will share in its pollution: if the Universities be without morality and religion, the Clergy, springing from them, must also be devoid of these. In fine, if public confidence be cut off from the University, it will be from the Ministers of our Church. But it would seem the object of the Reviewer to effect this end; and whatever may be the outcry against our Church for its want of liberality, it would be difficult to find as many strictures against the Scottish, emanating from us, as we daily see and hear from them in opposition to ourselves.

The first observation which I shall offer is of little importance in itself, but it will shew that the writer is not especially observant of "truth severe." At p. 352, he is violent against our system, because it removes young men from the eye of the parent, except "for a month or two, twice a year." But at p. 354, where the object is to speak against the expense, he does not scruple averring" Besides, the vacations throw them back on his hands five months in a year," &c. So much for self-conviction. But the next charge requires a more formal reply, and that will be a direct contradiction; and, that I may only speak from personal knowledge, I will confine myself to Oxford. "But we have the most entire persuasion, that the plan of sending young men of eighteen or nineteen to live together for the three most critical years of their lives, at a distance from their parents or guardians, subject to no effectual or useful control, and suffered to drink, dice, and wench as they please, read what they please, and associate with whom they please, provided only they are punctual in attending at chapel for five minutes in a morning, and regular in wearing the proper vestments, and shewing themselves at the hour of grace before meatis one of the most extravagant follies that ever entered into the minds of men," &c.

Now as to the control-the very examinations, as they now are, impose no slight control; for the time required for reading in preparation for them, to say nothing of the two or three daily College lectures,— must leave but comparatively little opportunities for any of the gross enormities there recorded. But is it not notorious to every undergraduate, that his conduct and mode of life are as well known to the Tutors as to himself? As to the "associating with whom they please,"whom will they meet but their equals? And if there be objections against any, they are very unceremoniously compelled to evacuate. Here it will be observed that I say nothing of the hour of closing the gates in the evening, and the necessity that every one be in College by a certain time. For the "five minutes in chapel," we will speak of it where it is made a new ground for reviling that of which the Reviewer evidently "knows nothing certainly." We do not deny that there is much liberty of action; but we maintain, and submit it to every member who has since entered on life, whether in the more essential things there be not "effectual and useful control?" I do not purpose speaking of

the “London University," else we might very fairly draw a comparison between the probable moral effects which will be produced by it, and the effects of Oxford. Should it be established, it is not unlikely that many young men will be sent from the country to attend its course of instruction, and be left in that dangerous metropolis entirely on their own guidance. But in Oxford (for I am speaking of that only), what are the external temptations? There is no theatre; there is no gambling house; its few billiard rooms may not be opened till one, and must be closed at nine; its streets are at all hours paraded by Proctors and their Pros. Every tradesman is under the control of the Vice-Chancellor; and if he be foolish enough to allow any member to incur inordinate debts, he knows that he is not allowed to recover. In many Colleges the members must appear at three or four separate hours in the day. In fact, the men either are, or are not, reasonable beings: if they are not, they are not kept there; if they are, they are restrained not only by their own feelings, but by a regime and discipline fully as strict as is consistent with their time of life.

The next charge really requires contradiction; for were it established, or generally believed true, it would greatly shake the credit of the Clergy of our Establishment. The Reviewer is speaking of the omission of the study of divinity in the proposed University, and very strangely sanctions the omission by our Universities. It would trespass too greatly on your pages, were his whole passage extracted, pp. 360 and 361. We will then only take the outline. He asks, "which of the lay youth ever attend a single lecture on divinity? The handful destined for the Church, no doubt, go to such lectures on theological matters as are there delivered." First, is he aware how great a proportion of the whole this "handful" forms? "But there are other instructions of a religious nature, it is said, besides the mere lectures. Indeed! where be they?-by whom conveyed?-at what hours?" &c. Now all who in Oxford stand for a degree, must, as a sine quâ non, pass no slight examination in divinity; and if deficient in this-no matter what their other qualifications-they are not plucked, they are forthwith sent out of the schools: but all the divinity requisite for the schools must be acquired without the public divinity lectures; therefore there must be some other means of religious instruction: and in reply to his triumphant inquiries, we answer, in the College Divinity Lectures, of which, there are several in each week; and at the end of each term, every under-graduate is examined in divinity (in common with other things) at the Collections. On all this, we boldly say that the study of Theology is the great distinction of the system at Oxford. It is constantly taught in each College; it forms an essential part of the College examinations; and is the very first consideration in the schools. The next sentence is most illiberal and most false-" Will it be said that the attendance at chapel for a few minutes daily, effects the extrusion of the old man--the hearer half asleep, just risen from the bed he is just going to re-occupy-and the reader in such haste that he has been known repeatedly to boast of being able to give any man any distance as far as the Creed, and beat him?"-and in the note is given the stale story of "Pontius Pilate." Here, in the first place, he omits entirely the service twice a day, and says nothing of the de

meanour positively required from the men. And I will venture to assert most positively, that I never heard the service read in a way in which I should be ashamed of reading it in the presence of any congregation.

It were a waste both of time and of your pages to say more. Every member of Oxford knows that Theology is the prominent feature of the academic instruction; and every member has felt that in discipline generally, and in moral and religious discipline especially, there is control both effectual and useful. It is with a view that the generality of persons be not deceived by such foul slanders, that I have trespassed on your attention.

I am, &c. &c.

A. M. Oxon.

SIR,

ON THE MISSION OF BISHOP LUSCOMBE.

To the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer.

I have attentively perused the just and judicious remarks in your review (for December last) of the Sermons of Mr. Hook on the erroneous mode of appointment of a continental Bishop over our Clergy abroad, by a Church to which they neither owe, nor can consistently render, any allegiance. Independently of this serious and well-grounded objection upon a subject at this time the object of considerable discussion, as well as embarrassment, among the Clergy abroad, there is a further misconception calling for notice in one of the very ungrounded assumptions, upon which the author of this Sermon has argued the necessity of such appointment at all, to which none of your Reviewer's reflections seem to advert.

Mr. H. asserts, that the English Continental Clergy are acting without commission or licence, and are, indeed, "assuming an authority which was not bestowed upon them at their ordination."

Now it does not appear, in any instance of the formation of the British continental Churches, (established, as they all are, upon the principles, and wherein the services are conducted in the strictest conformity with the rites and ceremonies of our National Church,) that the pastoral charge has devolved upon any Clergyman who has not been previously licensed by his own diocesan at home; and that, consequently, so far from the existence of any necessity now for such licence, its bestowal could not confer a validity on their ministry with which their existing commission has not already most fully invested them.

However, did the alledged necessity even exist, it is justly argued, (with every possible respect for the individual bearing the mission,) that as he is not commissioned by the authority to which their allegiance is alone due, the English Clergy abroad would, by any submission to him, implicating their acknowledgment of the Scottish Church, (of which he is the avowed missionary delegate,) be acting in opposition to the express letter of a statute,* interdicting the exercise of

* Geo. III. June 15, 1792.

the functions of any order of the Episcopal Communion of Scotland within the Church of England.

Upon what authority, then,-for this is the dilemma in which both Bishop Luscombe and the Clergy abroad are involved-does that commission become effectual to a Minister of the British Establishment, merely because he happens to be resident abroad, which he cannot recognize, or of which he is prohibited to avail himself, at home? And it may be further asked, if (as Mr. H.'s argument implies) the ministry of a Presbyter or Deacon ceases to be commissioned on his residence out of the controul of his Church, whether the same disqualification must not equally attend that of the higher order of Episcopacy, when alike separated from its jurisdiction? Yours respectfully,

SIMPLEX.

March 6th, 1826.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

To the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer.

SIR,-Whatsoever may be the intrinsic merits of plans formed for the benefit of the poor, they have frequently to contend with inveterate prejudices, and to offer many a fruitless appeal to indifference, before the value of them can be appreciated, or even the nature of them comprehended. In these cases, the influence of the Parochial Clergy is peculiarly valuable. By their authority and activity the progress of such measures is greatly accelerated,—the rich are induced to support, and the poor to examine, or at least to adopt them,-and thus gradually to learn from experience the advantages of institutions, with which either their prepossessions, or their ignorance, would otherwise have prevented them from becoming acquainted.

I trust, then, that my brother Clergy will not consider me either intrusive or presumptuous in attempting to excite their attention to some circumstances concerning "Friendly Societies," with which both the welfare of their respective parishioners, and the interests of the public, appear to be materially connected.

Though the principle of these Societies is highly praiseworthy, yet, under the old system, they were liable to great abuses; and, in some cases from corrupt, and in others from ignorant management, a great proportion of them are become mischievous in their application and fraudulent in their tendency. It is not, however, my present purpose to enter into a general detail of abuses to which these Societies are liable. There is one fact, to which in particular I wish to attract the notice of the Clergy, and through them to awaken the attention of the poor. This fact is, that evidence was last year given by competent persons before a Committee of the House of Commons, shewing that several of the old "Friendly Societies," (owing to original miscalculation, or to subsequent mismanagement,) are, or in the course of a few years will be, UTTERLY INSOLVENT, or unable to fulfil their engagements. The consequence will be, that either the younger depositors will altogether lose their contributions, or a premature division of the funds will take place, in which, as it has usually happened, the older members will not receive their due proportion.