(P. 671.) The Warden had put forth a low church view of baptism; the Puseyite antagonist prints in opposite columns the Warden's words and the words of the Prayer Book, which clearly enough prove that the Warden had forgotten his Prayer Book, and rested too much on the Scriptures. The "holy rite of confirmation" is declared "to be a means of strengthening the candidates with the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, although the gift of the Holy Ghost in regeneration, and remission of sins, is in baptism." One sentence in this paper deserves especial notice. "I reserve," says the writer, "what I have to offer on the necessity of tradition for the reception by the church of the usage of infant baptism, till my next letter," a letter which will probably contain some cogent arguments against the evangelical clergy who deny tradition, as it is certain that "the usage of infant baptism" rests entirely on tradition. OXFORD. THE REGIUS PROFESSOR. WHILST the divines of the Oxford School are with impunity introducing popery, restoring the invocation of the saints and of the Virgin Mary, converting the Lord's Supper into a sacrifice to be performed by priests, acknowledging that Rome is the mother of the Church of England, reducing the operations of the Holy Spirit within the compass of a ceremony to be performed by priests over infants, inventing new dresses for priests, and new decorations for altars and churches, they still continue their political war (for it is nothing else) against Dr. Hampden, and after three years' caballing, are still endeavouring to oust, or to annoy that illustrious scholar. We do not the least allow that it is a religious question; it is, indeed, carried on "in Nomine Domini," and clergymen are the actors in it; but when we consider the theology of Dr. Hampden's opponents, and when we read his frequent disclaimers of the imputations of heresy cast on him by his Popish enemies, we are at no loss to understand the secret of this cabal. Had Dr. Hampden been a high church clergyman or a Tory, he might have propounded tenfold worse sentiments than those with which his enemies pretend to be offended, and no tongue in Oxford would have stirred against him. We do not defend Dr. Hampden's theology; it does not by any means contain clear views of the gospel; but in this respect it is only on a par with the theology of a very large majority of the clergy; and we see clearly, that if he ought to be put out of the synagogue for unsound doctrine, then, by the same rule, the clergy ought also to be excommunicated, not merely a few here and there, but in large crowds all over the kingdom. The annual nomination of the select preachers at Oxford having just been made, the Regius Professor of divinity has sent in to the Vice Chancellor of the University the following protest against such minutes: "To the Rev. the Vice-Chancellor. "Mr. Vice-Chancellor, - As the Queen's Professor of Divinity in this University, I feel myself, out of duty to her Majesty, and a just sense of my own liberty as an Englishman, obliged once more and finally to protest against the statute of May, 1836; by which, under cover of an enactment for the good of this University, I have been deprived of certain rights attached to my office, without any legal grounds for such proceeding, either in the constitution of the University or in the laws of the land; without precedent, and without even those forms of inquiry which the laws exact for the humblest individual. statute; together with the opinion of counsel against its legality. "1. Because that nomination has been made without my presence or concurrence: whereas, by the statute establishing the select preachers, the Regius Professor of Divinity is constituted a member of the board by which they are to be nominated. "2. Because the statute of 1836, depriving the Regius Professor of his place in that board, is illegal; as transgressing the royal charter accepted by the university in 1836; and is also in violation of the oath by which members of the university are bound to the maintenance of that charter. "3. Because the rights of my office have been violently infringed by such a nomination. "4. Because, if even it were in the power of the University to inflict a penalty on the Regius Professor of Divinity, such penalty could not be legally inflicted, except for misconduct in his office. "5. Because a privilegium, or a law against an individual, is contrary to the principle of all law. my "6. Because it is bounden duty to guard the prerogative of the Crown, so far as my office is concerned, from diminution or disrespect; and it is evident that the Queen's Majesty has been insulted in an insult to her professor. B. B. HAMPDEN, Regius Professor of Divinity." Christ-Church, Oxford, "We think the statute of 1836 is illegal, as violating the restrictions imposed by the Laudian Code, and as passed by the assumption and exercise of a power which has not been conceded to the University. (Signed) J. CAMPBELL. STEPHEN LUSHINGTON. Temple, Dec. 17, 1836. MONUMENT TO THE MARTYRS AT OXFORD. EXTRACT from the Prospectus :"It is proposed to erect in Oxford, in perpetual memory of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, a church with a tower, surmounted by a balustrade, formed of the words Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer,-Martyrs;' and a window of painted glass, representing, in different compartments, the trial and martyrdom of those devoted witnesses of the truth. It is proposed that this church should be built in the parish of St. Ebbe, wherein there is a great demand for increased church-room,-the present church containing only 700 persons, and the population being already and reasonably expected, in consequence of new houses lately erected, to amount to .... ; so that, though the curate of this parish is engaged in promoting the increase of church-accommodation there, when he has accomplished the erection of even a very capacious church, there will remain many hundreds of Christians destitute of access to public worship in their own parish." The idea of erecting a monument, to the martyrs at Oxford has much to recommend it. How that idea should be executed is another question. Here, however, we would only notice the curious statement of the prospectus :— 1. It is taken for granted that every individual of the parish, man, woman, and child, ought to go to church; and that every individual wishes it. The estimate is made from the whole population; and just as many hundreds or thousands as the population may happen to exceed the number of sittings in the parish church, so many hundreds or thousands are supposed to be destitute of any means of worshipping God. 2. It is taken for granted that all the parishioners, men, women, and children, are "Christians." Parish baptism has made them Christians, and they are so reputed in the Prayer Book. 3. It is taken for granted that no place or places for worshipping God, excepting churches, can be taken into any calculation where the Christian religion is concerned. Dissenting chapels are supposed to be not existing: they do not offer any access to "the people for worshipping God." This is continually the language of the Church of England. Now, it so happens that in the parish of St. Ebbe is Mr. Bulteel's chapel; in which there are collected every Sabbath morning and evening at least 700 persons, hearing the Gospel well and truly preached. Moreover, there is in his chapel congregated for worshipping God a visible church of Christ, separated from the world, and joined in church fellowship. But this there is not in the parish church; nor can there be. Not if they were to build ten new churches, could they produce by them a church of Christians. THE DISTRESSES OF DR. HOOK, THE anxieties of the apostles were concerning spiritual things. They were anxious that the sincere word of God should be fully and clearly set forth; that Christians should fight the good fight of faith, and lay hold on eternal life, to which they had been called, and had witnessed a good profession before many witnesses; that, under the weight of afflictions, they should not be wearied nor faint in their minds; that love should rule amongst the brethren; that the church should be a temple for the Holy Ghost, and that believers should be growing up in Christ in all things. They were not troubled about such questions as these: The proper posture for the minister to assume in prayer-whether he should turn his face or his back to the people —whether there should be two pulpits --whether there should be a faldstool in the sanctuary-whether there should be candlesticks on a table-or whether the ministers should wear this or that robe, or ornament with their robes. These, however, are the matters that trouble Dr. Hook's mind. In a sermon preached by that clergyman, at a visitation of the Bishop of Ripon, and lately published, we find the following passage. "Many other innovations. might easily be pointed out, such as the prevailing practice for the ministers to turn in prayer to the people. In the days of the reformers, and for some time after, the minister turned from the people in prayer, to them in exhortation; so that, even by his action, the people could distinguish between his address to them, and his address for them, and with them. They were continually reminded, by outward circumstances, of the holy duty in which they ought to be engaged. The innovation in this respect has likewise led to another, in that unsightly novelty, a second pulpit; which is now adopted in some sanctuaries, instead of the ancient faldstool, or low desk. Among omissions, we may note that the people (in consequence, perhaps, of the former innovation) too generally sit instead of kneeling at prayer, and seldom bow at the name of Jesus; whilst, in some places, we find that the clergy no longer say the communion service standing at the communion table; and the table is deprived of the candlesticks with which it is directed it should be adorned. Anthems are frequently discontinued, even in places where they sing; except when there is a communion, the offertory and prayer for the church militant are generally omitted, and several portions of the clerical habiliments have fallen into disuse.”—(Page 36.) Amidst this superstitious nonsense, one expression should be noticed. Dr. Hook says that the clergyman, when he is addressing God for the people, should turn his back from them; and that for two reasons: first, the Popish priests do so; secondly, to create an idea that the people cannot pray for themselves; but that the priest is, as it were, to go to God by himself for them. Our Lord in heaven does not turn his back on his people; neither do we ever find that when he was on earth he turned his back on his disciples, when he was interceding for them, or seeking to do them good. about the machinery of their system, not one word or syllable in which the church of Christ could take the smallest interest. Canon xxviii. On the uniformity to be observed in public worship. As in all the ordinary parts of divine service, it is necessary to fix by authority the precise form, from which no bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall be at liberty to depart, by his own alterations or insertions, lest such liberty should produce consequences destructive of decency and order, it is hereby enacted, that in the performance of morning and evening service, the words and rubrical directions of the English service shall be strictly adhered to; and it is further decreed, that if any clergyman shall officiate, or preach, in any place publicly, without using the liturgy at all, he shall, for the first offence, be admonished by the bishop; and if he persevere in his uncanonical practice, shall be suspended, until, after due contrition, he be restored to the exercise of his clerical functions. In publicly reading prayers, and administering the sacraments, the surplice shall be used as the proper sacerdotal vestment. All the "Canons" of this "Synod" were of a similar description-laws THE DISSENTERS. STRANGE events are taking place in Wales. John James, and David Jones, persons in respectable stations of life, dissenters, but holding the office of church-warden in their respective parishes, have been cast into prison by a process of the ecclesiastical court, for not attending church. This extraordinary process has been set on foot at the suit of the clergymen of the parish, who having a clerical spite against the churchwardens for being dissenters, have thus ventured to evoke the dormant spirit of persecution, which, for many years, has been slumbering in the ecclesiastical courts. In these days, it seems to be a hazardous experiment of sacerdotal malignity, thus to bid defiance, as it were, to the popular antipathy, and to go out of the way to provoke the enemies of the church, who certainly are neither weak, nor few in number. What may be the result of this outrage it may be difficult to predict. One evil, however, will result from it, and that not a small one. It will offer a popular argument in justification of the new "Association for the promotion of Religious Equality," which may have attractions for a politician, but should have none for a humble Christian. At Sheffield, on Wednesday, November 21, Mount Zion Chapel was re-opened by the Rev. John Thorpe, and the report of that event, as given in the Sheffield Independent, seems to us so instructive, that we think it proper to make a few extracts. The editor of the newspaper says, "Owing to the constellation of talent which Mr. Thorpe's influence had engaged for the occasion, it had been looked forward to with much anxiety and delight. On Wednesday morning, Dr. Raffles preached from 1 Tim. i. 15. • This is a faithful saying,' &c. The universal testimony of those who heard the sermon is, that great as the reputation of Dr. Raffles deservedly is as a preacher, they had never known him, even in his happiest efforts, to surpass the sermon of the morning. In the evening, the Rev. Dr. John Harris, author of Mammon, preached to a densely crowded congregation, from Heb. iv. 18. Finally, my brethren, whatsoever things are true,' &c. During the whole of this long address, the congregation was fixed in close attention, and it is not too much to say, that the sermon excited unbounded admiration, and must have produced solid impressions. In the afternoon, the ministers, and about 120 gentlemen, sat down to dinner in the vestry, under the presidency of the Rev. John Thorpe. whole details of the dinner were extremely well managed, and did great credit to the purveyor, Mr. Bridge, Forester's Inn, Division Street. The wines were supplied by Mr. Wiley, of the Haymarket, who, with his usual liberality, had made a present of the wine required for the ministers' table. The divine blessing was asked by the Rev. J. Boden. The "Mr. Thorpe, speaking of Dr. Raffles, said, 'I remember well the time when I, a mere stripling, first listened to his eloquence. I remember that the excitement produced by that exhibition drove me almost to the verge of insanity. It was the first deep impression I ever had of eloquence, and it first awoke in me the passion to become a public speaker. He was present at my ordination, and I well remember the subduing effect of his address to the congregation. He has been present at another event in my life, of great importance to me; and here he is now the same sound-hearted, high-minded, and incorruptible English gentleman, at my right hand. This morning he has far more than realised the brilliant promise of his early days.' Dr. Raffles, in reply, said,Any conceivable ability in speaking, would be inadequate to express the emotions which were striving in his breast at that moment. The way in which his reverend friend had done him the honour to introduce his name, and the way in which it had been responded to, had overwhelmed him....yet he was exceedingly thankful to have been permitted to enjoy this day. I rejoice, Sir, to see you occupying a position in this great and important town, and I hope,' &c. . . . . The Rev. J. Thorpe said, 'We have a very distinguished guest, to whom I am sure that all honour will be paid. There is a gentleman present, whose acceptance of our invitation has been in the highest degree gratifying, since it is an unusual thing to be in the presence of a man who has in any degree anticipated his own immortality. It is commonly said, that a man's works are not appreciated till he is dead; yet I hope I may say, to the honour of human nature, bad as it is, and I am not accustomed to be its eulogist, that sometimes a contemporaneous judgment is formed and pronounced, which subsequent ages confirm as correct. The gentleman of whom I speak has anticipated and ensured his own reputation; and when he shall be removed to a higher sphere, all the sentiments of respect and love which belong to him now, will only be established. I beg you to drink the health of James Montgomery, Esq.' Mr. Montgomery's reply was short, modest, and unpretending. Dr. Harris' health was then proposed. 'I remember him,' said Mr. Thorpe, a little palefaced boy, and the look of tenderness and interest with which he used to be regarded by one for whom I shall ever cherish the most reverential feelings, who used to say, "That lad will astonish them yet.' The reply of Dr. Harris contained nothing particular. The next person noticed by the chairman was Mr. William Bunting (Wesleyan Methodist). There |