in reference to College chapels; but they will apply also to attendance at the University Church. The truth is, the scheme is not practicable: and sure we are, that a British Parliament will never adopt it while a national Church is maintained.

The scheme also would be ruinous to the learning and literature of the land. It would open the door to confusion and disorder; and while numbers would never enter those seats of learning under such circumstances, others who did enter would spend their time in disputes and quarrels respecting religion, politics, and the various questions which are necessarily agitated when men of different creeds associate together. Some one remarked, in the recent debate, that it would be better for Dissenters to turn their attention to the improvement of their own places of education. We are of this opinion. Not long since, we remember, that it was actually stated in a Dissenting Review, that Homerton and some other academy, the name of which we do not now recollect, were far superior to Oxford and Cambridge, and that the learning of the individuals who adorn the English Universities was not to be compared with that of the Dissenting schools. Now surely Dissenters may remain satisfied with such advantages, without being anxious to secure the inferior ones of the two Universities. But perhaps they imagine that an infusion of Dissent would exalt them to the standard of Homerton !

Undoubtedly attempts will be made, year after year, to open Oxford and Cambridge to all parties; but, until other radical changes are introduced into our institutions, we do not expect that they will be successful. Nor are we fearful of other changes. On the contrary, we believe that the good sense of the English people will check the spirit of innovation which was let loose some years ago. The cause, for instance, advocated by Mr. Christie, has retrograded, rather than advanced, during the last few years; and we are inclined to think that it will retrograde still further.

THE WEEKLY OFFERTORY.

A step, we think, has been gained towards the restoration of the weekly offertory, in the recent proceedings of the Bishop of London respecting China. Our readers are aware that a collection was made throughout the diocese, in order to assist in planting the Church in that distant land. In most cases, we believe, the offerings were collected from seat to seat during the reading of the offertory. We know not whether the practice

was general, but we know that it was adopted in many churches. The amount thus collected will be devoted to the purpose already specified. Happy shall we be to find this practice followed by other prelates in their respective dioceses. We hope to see a general collection throughout the country for the same object. But objections have been most unaccountably and most unreasonably raised to the mode of collecting from pew to pew. Though the alms of communicants are thus received, many persons object to this method for a general collection. We call the objection unreasonable, nor can we believe that any valid objection can be offered. Surely no one would object, because it is more difficult to avoid giving, than when a plate is held at the church door. We trust that none of the objectors are influenced by such a feeling; but we cannot but express our belief, that the conduct of some persons appears very much to countenance the supposition.

An outcry, too, was raised, even in the Times newspaper among others, that the Bishop was about to enforce the weekly offertory. Suppose his lordship were to do so, would there be anything heretical in the practice, or terrible in its consequences? The Church enjoins it-why then should the individuals, who wish to restore the practice, be branded as innovators? But in this instance, as in many others, the Bishop was misrepresented. Like every sound Churchman, he wishes for its restoration; but he did not enjoin it. During his recent confirmations he took occasion to address some observations on the subject to the clergy. These, it appears, were misunderstood; and his lordship has now addressed an explanatory letter to the clergy of London and its vicinity. The Bishop states, that the matter must be left to the clergy themselves-that he did not enjoin the practice, but that he should be rejoiced if the Church were in such a state as to justify its general adoption. Then, with respect to charity sermons, his lordship recom mended, though he did not enjoin, that the collection should be made from pew to pew while the sentences were read—a practice which he deemed more becoming than to make it during the singing of a hymn. Very reasonably, the Bishop expresses his surprise at the opposition of certain laymen. Our opinion is, that the laity would do nothing were they not secretly backed by some of the clergy. After all, is there anything so obnoxious in the recommendations of the Bishop of London as to induce clergymen or laymen to speak and act as if the Church were likely to be endangered?

Our readers are aware of the reflections, the severe and un

charitable reflections, which have been cast upon the Bishop of London in consequence of his Charge. In a preceding article it is stated that the Bishop of Calcutta has reprinted the Charge in India, because he considered it to be a powerful antidote to the erroneous opinions of the Tracts for the Times. At the close of the letter addressed to the clergy, the Bishop of London alludes to the misrepresentations of his views on this subject; and he distinctly states that few persons have protested against the views of the Tracts more distinctly or emphatically than himself. We have previously made the very same remark. We stated that we considered the Charge to be a most powerful defence of the truth against those publications. His lordship has now put forth the same statement. But will the persons who hesitate not to misrepresent any individual, whose opinions on all points do not square with their own, cease to calumniate the Bishop of London? We have no such expectation; but we rejoice to think that truth must eventually prevail, and that already the eyes of many are open to see the misrepresentations of some of those publications, in which men and things are exhibited in such false colours.

THE SEES OF BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH.

An attempt was made in Parliament to prevent the execution of the scheme for the union of these two sees; a scheme which was recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The attempt was unsuccessful, but we are not discouraged. The strong feeling which has been manifested throughout the country will, we are inclined to hope, lead her Majesty's Government to re-consider the recommendation of the Commissioners. Whatever may be done, we trust that Wales will not be deprived of one of her bishops. It appears that the great difficulty in the way is the necessity of sending a bishop to Manchester; but we feel assured that this obstacle may be overcome. In the recent debate the proposal of the Commissioners was supported by several of our prelates. At the same time we see nothing in their speeches to lead to the conclusion that they would not spare Wales if Manchester could be provided for. We are therefore inclined to hope, that before the next session of Parliament some arrangement may be made, by which both objects -namely, the security of the Welch sees, and a provision for Manchester, may be attained. We trust that during the recess some of the bishops will give their attention to the subject, with a view to an amicable settlement in the ensuing session.

We strongly recommend on this subject, "A Letter to His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury on the Ecclesiastical Commission, with especial reference to the projected Suppression of a Bishopric in North Wales. By R. W. Huntley, M.A." Mr. Huntley's object is to show, that in such a matter the voice of the Church should be ascertained through the medium of Convocation. When the Convocation assembled in 1841, the upper house sent down to the lower an address to the Queen, containing a clause which recognized and approved the Ecclesiastical Commission. This clause was struck out by the lower house, and the address, in its amended form, was accepted by the upper, and presented to her Majesty. As the suppression of the see in Wales is grounded on the recommendation of the Commission, Mr. Huntley argues, that the Convocation has, by rejecting the clause in question, expressed its disapproval of the Commission. Before, therefore, the recommendation respecting Wales is carried into effect, he thinks that the Convocation should be permitted to speak. At present that assembly is not permitted to do more than address the crown; but the writer of the letter is of opinion that no such step should be taken, except with the concurrence of the Church, and that consequently the Synod should be permitted to act. In our next number we hope to resume the consideration of this important subject, in connexion with Mr. Huntley's letter.

SOCIETIES.

It gives us much pleasure to find that the various societies connected with the Church of England are in a flourishing condition. We have occupied already the space usually devoted to an Ecclesiastical Report, or we had intended to have dwelt a little on the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, the Propagation Society, the National Society, and the Church Building Society. There are other questions, too, of very great importance, which must be reserved for consideration in our next. We allude especially to the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, and the decision on the Braintree Church-rate case. These will be discussed in our next number.

241

General Literature.

Tracts for the Last Days. Nos. 1 to 20. London: Painter. WHEN the publication of these Tracts began, which was no longer ago than the commencement of the present year, we shortly expressed a favourable opinion of the first numbers which appeared, as bringing subjects of the greatest importance under our notice, and so handling them as to present much food for deep thought, and requiring very deliberate and attentive consideration. This opinion has not been changed by the Tracts which have since appeared, though they have come out in so rapid a succession that we have upwards of twenty of them in less than six months. It seems evident, from the depth of thought on the wide range of subjects handled inthe Tracts, that the matter has been long considered; and it would seem, from the variety of style, as well as from the quick publication, that many persons are engaged in preparing them: yet there is an unity of plan and connectedness of purpose, which lead to the inference that they are under the superintendence of some one individual. We have no right to pry into other men's motives for concealment, and we remember the old story of an impertinent stranger wanting to know what one of the old philosophers carried under his cloak-"I carry it there in order that you may not know," was the reply of the wise man. For our own parts we see nothing in these Tracts which any man might not very safely avow, and we see a great deal which most men might be very proud to own, and much which it may be profitable to men of all parties in the Church to ponder, and apply each to their own case and circumstances. Yet, looked at as compositions, these Tracts are very unequal in matter as well as in style; and they require a good deal of sifting and adjusting. So that we would willingly have delayed our further notice, until we could take more time to analyze them, were it not that the subjects are so important as to require an immediate notice, and that if they come out with the same railway speed, our quarterly vehicle will never overtake them. We cannot say that we approve of the practice of putting the discussions of deep points of doctrine into the form of Tracts. It seems to us irreverent towards such sacred subjects, and we think of the feeling of incongruity which would arise from seeing any of St. Paul's epistles printed as threepenny tracts. And in the very style there is an occasional flippancy and irreverence, induced probably by this form of publication, which mars the effect which they are intended to produce, and might otherwise accomplish. A lively and familiar style is becoming in a newspaper or in a political tract, but does not so well comport with religious discussions as the grave, measured, and even ponderous style which is associated in our minds with these weighty subjects. With this exception, and which only applies to some of the Tracts, the style of these writers is remarkably clear-we seldom have any doubt of their meaning-there are no round-about pedan

VOL. XIV.—R