and caprice of the people. heresy in the Church. It is not found that endowments create Dr. S. mildly blames the murder of Charles I., not, however, upon principle, for he launches his heaviest anathema at the royal victim, but as a great political error. Perhaps, however, he thinks this mode of expression the strongest condemnation of the act; as Fouché said of the murder of the Duke d'Enghien, "it is worse than a crime, it is a blunder." But he shall speak for himself: It has been a vulgar story, that the Puritans were the authors of the civil war, the murderers of King Charles I., and the overturners of the altar and the throne. That many of them were in the parliamentary councils and armies, we are not ashamed to reflect upon; but not a few Episcopalians also were their associates. That the Episcopal Church was for a time laid prostrate, was chiefly the result of the bigotry, cruelty, and tyranny of Archbishop Laud and his faction. That some of the king's judges were Puritans, is also true, but others were Episcopalians, and men who made no profession of religion; and I must profess my conviction, that though the court which arraigned and condemned the king was unauthorised and unconstitutional, and though the act of his execution was a great political error, the unhappy sufferer merited his fate as a traitor and enemy to his country.-P. 42. Thus it is that he speaks of a crime, the foulest blot in the annals of England, and the anniversary of which is properly observed as a day of national humiliation: a crime without example, and long without a parallel, till atheism in France rivalled the last atrocity of English fanaticism. Dr. Smith's estimate of the number of Dissenters it were injustice to omit. Indeed, he contends that more than half the worshippers in the kingdom are Nonconformists. His estimate will be found at pp. 45, 46. The number of protestant dissenting congregations, according to the best information that could be collected by the editors of the Congregational Magazine, in 1829: Presbyterian, of whom the larger part, perhaps 200, are Unitarian. 258 1289 888 Antipædobaptist, of whom a very small number are Unitarian Total 6522 This statement does not inform us of the number of persons; a defect which I have not the means of supplying In the present year, 1834, some gentlemen in London have taken great pains to obtain a more minute account, using every precaution to secure accuracy. But they have been able to get returns only to furnish the following list, from two hundred and three towns and villages, in twelve counties; and it is important to remark, that some of the largest towns in the kingdom, and in which Dissenters exist in greater numbers, both absolute and proportionate, than in most of those which this list comprehends, are not here included. Among those thus unhappily wanting, are London with its vast suburbs, Bristol, Bath, Manchester, Bolton in Lancashire, Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield, Halifax, Huddersfield, Leicester, Northampton, Norwich, Cambridge, Portsmouth, Ply mouth, Exeter, and many other considerable towns. This statement, therefore, can be regarded as only an approximation to a specimen, and that not so favourable to the Nonconformist part as complete returns would be. We accuse not Dr. S. of being concerned in drawing up this second table; but we do say that he has shown very blameable carelessness, in receiving what is so evidently a dishonest fabrication. He gives the numbers of dissenting congregations, on the authority of the Congregational Magazine, as 2,177. On the same authority, he states the Methodist congregations at 4,087, nearly 2 to 1; and it is well known that the episcopal churches and chapels in England and Wales are 11,000, more than 5 to 1. But this pretended partial return, which, according to Dr. S. is not so favourable to the nonconformist party as complete returns would be, makes dissenters three times greater in places of worship and hearers than Methodism, and twice as great as the Church; an error as 6 to 1 in the first case, and as 10 to 1 in the second. We shall not imitate Dr. S. in making an assertion without stating to what part of the country it refers, and therefore, in disputing the general respectability of the 2,177 dissenting meeting houses, we will give him the opportunity to contradict any misstatement, by naming a county for the test. We will take Cornwall as the county in which the proportion of Nonconformists to the population is greater than in any other; for it is said to contain 318 meeting houses, one twentieth part of their total number. We affirm, and challenge contradiction, that, exclusive of village dependencies, there are not twenty dissenting meeting houses in the county-that only two of these can raise more than 100%. a year for the minister-that some of them are in a state of beggary, and struggling for very existence-and that four of them, at Penzance, Penryn, Helston, and Truro, have lately been the scene of unpleasant questions, which ended in the removal of their ministers. We affirm that their village dependencies (which may average two or three for each meeting house, but all returned to swell the gross number without distinction) are of the most insignificant character; that scarcely one of them has a regular congregation; but they are chiefly attended by persons in the neighbourhood when the church is not open, or used as a convenient evening rendezvous; and that half a dozen moderately large churches would contain all the dissenters in the county. We affirm, finally, that the number of resident clergymen in the county is four times greater than that of the regular Wesleyan and dissenting ministers united. Our animadversions, we can truly repeat, have been penned with sorrow. We have been accustomed to respect Dr. Smith very highly, and when we took up his Sermon, we fully expected to find, something perhaps to oppose, but much to commend, and nothing to shake our former most favourable opinion. It would have been a far more pleasing task to meet a candid opponent in the most cordial temper of friendly discussion, than to be thus compelled to expose the ravings of party virulence. One thing is quite clear-that all community of feeling must be for ever at an end between the Church and Dissent. Dr. S. is confessedly the most moderate, and in all points the most respectable man of his party; and if the spirit of Dissent can so far poison a mind like his, it must be vain indeed to hope for cordiality from any within its influence. The Church now must know Dissent for an enemy, whom no reasonable concessions would satisfy, and whose hatred nothing but her destruction would appease. In the mean time, it is satisfactory to observe that the Church is daily gaining a firmer and wider hold on the affections of the country, while Dissent is going down as rapidly in public estimation. We have reserved Dr. Smith's opinion on the admission of dissenters to our Universities, because we are happy to find somewhat to commend in the candour with which he has met this question; and as we have quoted at length observations little creditable, we shall give this passage entire, only regretting that we must be quite at issue with him on the last paragraph. Το you, and many other eminent members of your University [he is addressing Dr. Lee], I felt, in common with my brethren, a high sense of obligation for your generous petition to Parliament in favour of the Admission of Dissenters to the advantages of the University. My gratitude is not the less because I think that the most dubious and difficult of all the subjects referred to. Since my attention has been drawn to a more minute examination of the argument, my opinion has undergone a change. The end I think right and desirable in itself: no man (I almost believe) feels more strongly than myself veneration and love to the two English Universities; or surrenders his imagination to be more enraptured with their "distant spires and antique towers," and the associations of their history. But to attain that end, I do not see that the means exist. The University, apart from the Colleges and Halls, is only an idea and a name but, so far as I understand the case, each of the Colleges and Halls in both Universities is of the nature of a private trust, and is an investment for purposes which imply that the membership and the whole discipline lie in the Episcopal Church. I have heard of no scheme for surmounting the obstacles; nor can I imagine any, that does not appear to involve the com mitting of injustice upon the Fellows, the Tutors, and the Members of the House generally. Disappointing and mortifying as this is, I cannot relieve myself from it. That the supreme government in every nation has a right (potestas) to deal with trusts and establishments, either by having permanent Courts of Equity or by special enactments upon the case, I admit but the exercise of this political or legal right can never take place, in accordance with the principles of the universal moral law (quod jus et fas est,) unless a trust have become impracticable or contra bonos mores; which cannot be said of any of your academical houses. Most sincerely shall I rejoice if the wisdom and goodness of His Majesty's Government should be able to adjust the matter upon satisfactory grounds. This, I humbly think, could take place only in concurrence with the University authorities. One thing, however, I am sure of; that the great body of Protestant Dissenters (I cannot answer for inconsiderate or unjust individuals, for some such are to be found in all large communities,) desire nothing except what can be proved to be, in the strictest sense, MORALLY RIGHT. Pp. 76, 77. Dr. Smith's ideas on the changes required for the internal discipline of our Church need only to be very briefly alluded to; indeed, he does not himself dwell on them at length. He thinks that we should imitate the dissenters in separating from the congregation the communicants, and that these alone should appoint the minister, to the exclusion of the patron, the Bishop, or the parish at large; and also that the Church should recognize the validity of lay ministers, admitting them to her pulpits, and allowing her Clergy in turn to officiate in meeting houses. Three points, he says, "free intercommunion in public prayer, pulpit services, and the Lord's table, might, I humbly think, and fervently hope, be established without wounding any man's conscience, and with infinite advantage to our personal holiness and the honour of our religion." Is Dr. S. serious in these proposals; or is he acting on that well-known principle in diplomacy, "demand every thing, that you may obtain nothing?" ART. II.-1. Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Mrs. Hannah More. By WM. ROBERTS, Esq. London: Seeley & Burnside. 4 vols. 1834. 2. Memoir of Mrs. Hannah More. By JOHN WATKINS, LL.D. London: Fishers & Jackson. 3. Mrs. Hannah More. No. XXI.) Pp. 72. (An article in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine, (Continued from p. 12.*) In her retirement at Cowslip Green, Mrs. More planned and constructed the noble moral machinery whereby an humble and quiet The reader is requested to correct the following errata in our last number : Page 4, for La Bottecourt read Lord Bottetourt. she had visited at his house read she 8, 9, and Page 15, for the sign read the sign 18, after Theodore dele the comma. female aspired, not unsuccessfully, to that "vast design," "to mend the world." She was peculiarly qualified for the task. Her morality was all firmly grounded on the only sure basis, religion; her religion, pure, scriptural, and admitting no compromise either with heresy or schism, was catholic and benignant; and those who differed from her views could not fail to regard her with respect. Her style was perspicuous, lively, agreeable, and opened a way for her opinions in many channels otherwise impenetrably closed. Her celebrity obtained immediate notice for whatever she published. Her character, extensively known, had conciliated affection, and interested multitudes in every thing she wrote. Her intercourse with all classes of society, and her close observation of all she witnessed, gave her great advantages in working out her plans of reformation; while the energy of her disposition enabled her to undertake labours which would have only brought upon the other sex that contumely which barbarism itself dares not offer to woman;* and which few of her own would have had boldness to originate, or spirit to sustain. The first fruits of Mrs. More's retirement were her "Thoughts on the Importance of the Manners of the Great to general Society." The conception was itself bold. Mrs. More had been caressed and courted by this class to a degree sufficient to have extinguished in any ordinary mind all perception of their errors. She weighed them, however, with a steady hand, in the balance of the Gospel. She shrank not from the charge of presumption, which might be expected to attach to a private lady appearing as the censor of the greatest in the land; nor from that of ingratitude, proclaiming her the exposer of faults which charity would rather conceal. Her ideas of charity were different. She thought it no charity to spare the pain of discipline where the alternative was fatal disease. She felt her capabilities, and exerted them, with what success it is unnecessary to state. Her book was published in 1788, anonymously.+ Her reason for this course is specified in a letter to her sister, wherein she says: "I have not owned myself the author; not so much because of that fear of man which worketh a snare,' as because, if anonymous, it may be ascribed to some better person; and because I fear I do not live as I write. I hope it may be useful to myself, at least, as I give a sort of public pledge of my principles, to *"If a prudent minister should attempt such an extensive inroad into the kingdom of darkness, he might expect such opposition, as few could withstand. But your sex and your character afford you a peculiar protection. They who would try to trample one of us into the dust, will be ashamed openly to oppose you."-Letter from the Rev. John Newton to Mrs. More, 1791. + Mrs. More was at a party given by Mrs. Garrick, where the "Thoughts,” which had just appeared, became the topic of conversation. A nobleman, who was seated next to her, asked her if she could conjecture the author? to which Mrs. More promptly replied, "Whoever it may be, I doubt not the writer was in earnest."The secret did not then transpire. |