clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."-" Physician, heal thyself?" And I do mean to say, Theophilus, that great as was the sin of the Marquis of Londonderry, it was but a mote compared with that of the Editor; because his Lordship does not profess to have so much knowledge of religious matters, and makes infinitely less pretences to superior sanctity. "That servant which knew his Lord's will and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke xii. 47.) "Whosoever keep the whole law, and yet shall offend in one point, is guilty of all."(James ii. 10.)

Theo. Why I told the Editor the very same in a letter which I wrote to him in reply to his attack upon us.

Evan.-But you might have been sure he would not insert it, for it is not his regular practice to insert things fairly on both sides of a question; and I saw that some communication had taken place between him and some one connected with the Magazine.

Theo. Oh, insert, it no. I did not expect that he would; but!I thought I would try him, or he might have afterwards said that had a reply been sent he would have given it. And in order to know whether, if he did insert it, he would insert it entire or not, I kept a copy of it.

Evan. That is just right-then you can read it for me, and let me hear how you managed him.

Theo.-Well, after I had stated in amount what you have just said, I began with the beginning, and wrote to him as follows:"Your first paragraph alludes to a number of recommendations of the Magazine which appear in the May number, and you say that it is a mode of puffing 'got up in some such way as the following :-Some friends of the publication, or it may be the Editor, or his associates, write various fine pieces of encomiums, lauding it amazingly; approving, in high strains, its principles, and representing it as the production of great talents, and the paragon of all excellencies. Then these high-sounding panegyrics get a place either by money or by favour in the newspapers, and sometimes in a very large number of them. The next step is to collect these verbose, frothy, and overstrained commendations, and print them on the cover of the periodical.' Now I am quite aware that this course is practised to a considerable extent; and if I were to say that even The Record-the all-at-once-immaculate Record-itself has inserted cut and dried' puffs of that very kind, either for money or by favour,' I should perhaps find it less difficult of proof than you imagine. But the point in hand is this: you have broadly insinuated that the numerous recommendations of The Church Magazine which you have seen-and you have not seen half of them-were 'got up' and procured in the corrupt way you state; and I mean to tell you that such, your broad insinuation, is an insinuation of that which is utterly false from beginning to end. And you know that so far as The Church Magazine is concerned, you were entirely destitute of even a shadow of proof or foundation for so unjust and unchristian an insinuation. Neither I, nor any of the highly-respectable Clergymen connected with the Magazine, had anything to do with the production of the recommendations which you refer to, and which seem to gall you so much.* They are all the spontaneous and unsolicited

*One of the proprietors of The Record, said to be also one of the principal writers in it, has himself a Magazine of similar price and size to The Church Magazine; but we do not say that this fact gave rise to the unchristian attack upon us, nor that it had any thing to do with it; we merely mention the circumstance.

'encomiums' of the papers whose titles are affixed to them. This may show you, what is the fact, that the principles of The Church Magazine are becoming more popular, and you may be mortified on that account, but you are not therefore at liberty to deal out just what insinuations you may please, with a view of preventing their spread. Meet the principles in a manner becoming a Christian, or an honest man, and your observations will command respect; and as you profess Christianity, I have a right, on Christian principles, to demand that you do so. But you have dealt in misrepresentation and falsehood. I am grieved to bring such accusations against a professor; but I am no less grieved to say that I am able to substantiate them. You say, with your accustomed recklessness, that The Church Magazine, like the political dissenters, merges the interest of vital truth in an attempt to coalesce for a selfish and worldly purpose.' Now this is a heavy charge to make against a Minister of Christ, or in fact against a large and respectable number of Clergymen; but fortunately it is mere assertion, without the slighest foundation in truth or fact. There is not a vital truth' which you consider as such, that I do not hold. I am strictly, and conscientiously, and well known to be an Evangelical Clergyman, and preach those doctrines designated Evangelical, more distinctly than many who claim the appellation. And when, therefore, you say that I have merged 'vital truth' for selfish and worldly purposes,' you say that which is false and slanderous, but I hope not maliciously so. Another of your assertions is, that the conductors, quite as regardless (as the political dissenters) of the real promotion and spread of the Gospel's saving truths, attempt to unite the godly and the ungodly, the spiritual and worldly-minded, in the adoption and maintenance of popish High Church principles.' Here are three false accusations in these few words:-first, that the conductors are regardless of the promotion of the Gospel's saving truths; second, that they attempt to unite the godly and ungodly;' and thirdly, that their object is the adoption and maintenance of popish High Church principles.' You must be extremely ignorant yourself, or fancy your readers to be so, or you would not designate as popery and popish that, namely the Episcopal Succession, which the papistry has, as inconsistent with popery, attempted to get rid of, and which you know the Church in England holds theoretically and practically even to exclusiveness. I have shown in that dialogue -for I readily confess that I am the Theophilus of it-that the rejection of the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession is not only inconsistent with the doctrines held by the Evangelicals, but that their notions regarding the ministerial office are essentially Arminian and Popish. And these essentially Arminian and Popish notions you have brought forward in your article, when intimating that the validity of the ministerial office and the good effects produced by the exercise of it,' depend on the goodness of the individual exercising it. But as your objections on this head are all anticipated, and, as you know, answered in the dialogue itself, and wisely left by you untouched, I shall merely refer to the article, and pass on to your next assertion that 'The dissenters try to deprive the Church of its temporalities, and these writers [of The Church Magazine] retaliate upon them, by attempting to deprive them of their spiritualities.' Now, in the first place, you know the dissenters have ever laboured to deprive the Church of its spiritualities, as well as of her temporalities; and in the second place, the writers of The Church Magazine, so far from making any attempt to deprive the dissenters of their spiritualities, are anxious that they should enter the Church and enjoy all the spiritualities which the Great Head of the Church has so abundantly provided for all His members." That is what I wrote to him, Evangelicus; and I dare say you will think I did right.

Evan. Perfectly so; but I think you have omitted two or three of the worst portions of the article, and which for their wickedness, I think, I never saw surpassed in any controversy-and the more sinful in this case, because the attack upon us was perfectly unprovoked and uncalled-for. The Record intimates in the latter part of its article, that we said or stated that from which it may be inferred that " the prayer of a wicked man produces effects as good as the prayer of a righteous man ;" and that "the preaching of error is as efficacious as the preaching of the truth." Now really, my dear Theophilus, is not this perfectly atrocious, if any thing in the world is; for not a syllable did we utter in our whole conversation which affords the slightest ground for such shocking accusations as these! But these unchristian and shameful slanders are fully equalled by another which this pretendedly pious paper utters, namely, that we pronounced blessed whom St. Paul pronounced accursed. These are The Record's own words:- "Those whom St. Paul under the plenary inspiration of the Spirit declares accursed, are now pronounced blessed." I should think, my good friend, and really hope for the sake of human nature, that many infidels would be ashamed to sit down and deliberately write such scandalously false accusations as these against a fellowcreature. And I this moment know two avowed atheists, one of whom was once a great religious professor on the same principles as The Record, who would scorn to be guilty of such conduct. And yet we here find it done by a noisy pretender to super-eminent piety, who, in a column before, gravely called the Marquis of Londonderry to account for a crime of far less magnitude. Alas! alas! my good brother, is not this awfully wretched and miserable? "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice; lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph. (2 Sam. i. 20).

Theo. Such conduct is truly distressing, my dear Evangelicus; but when men are led away by violent temper and bitterness of spirit, they sometimes indulge in reckless assertions, of which on reflection they bitterly repent. At the conclusion of my letter to The Record, I called upon the Editor to insert my letter as an act of justice, or to re-consider what he had falsely charged us with, and to make ample amends for his unchristian conduct; and that he must either do that, or be contented to forego all claim to be any longer considered entitled to the sacred name of Christian. I took him upon this high Christian ground, Evangelicus; but, notwithstanding all his professions, he refused to act accordingly; and formy part, I have now done with him on such grounds, praying that God would, in mercy to his soul, forgive him his sin as heartily as I am sure we both do, and grant him the grace of repentance to the amendment of his life.

Evan.-I cordially concur with you; and will not prolong the subject, assuring you that I would not have entered upon it, but that I thought we might as well examine the kind of arguments and the sort of weapons used by those who are still left behind us, opposing the truths which we ourselves once opposed, but have now, thank God, been led to embrace and hold fast. I wished to have had a word or two with you in reference to Korah's being a priest, as you said in our last conversation. An old friend, Laicus,' thinks that Korah was not a priest, and I am inclined to agree with him; but we must defer the subject to another opportunity, for I cannot now pleasantly enter upon it. May God, my dear brother, give us all the grace of humility and godly love, so that we may have less division and strife amongst us. Let us frequently offer to God, in whose hands are the hearts of all men, the beautiful Prayer for Unity, from the book of Common Prayer, used on occasion of the Monarch's accession :-. "O! God! the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the

Prince of Peace, give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that, as there is but one body, and one spirit, and one hope of our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may henceforth be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

AN INQUIRY INTO THE CHARACTER OF OUR POPULAR LITERATURE.

"He that contemns small things," says the son of Sirach, “shall fall by little and little ;" and if this remark be true, when spoken generally, it must command the most unqualified assent when we apply it to the cultivation of the mind, for, it is well known, that our most lasting impressions are the growth of early years, and flow from small beginnings. In this conviction we are anxious to have a few words with our readers upon the choice of books tobe placed in the hands of children, or to be used by persons whose opportunities of study are small. When the principles are fixed, and the mind is well informed, bad books may possibly be read without much detriment, for then the reader will either disregard what does not suit the objects for which he ́reads, or he will be possessed of sufficient knowledge to neutralise the mischief which may lie concealed. Not so the two classes just mentioned. To them all subjects are new; and they are prepared to receive information upon all; and they do receive it, whether it be true or false, good or bad, without discrimination or distinction. It will not, then, I think, be loss of time, if I propose the question to Churchmen in this paper, whether they have sufficiently attended to so important a matter?

The first books that are usually placed in the child's hands, are Barbauld's and Watts' Hymns. Of these writers, I need scarcely say, the former was a Socinian, the latter an Independent. The next step in our approved system of education, is to introduce the infant pupil to the engaging style of the American sectarian Jacob Abbott-after whom come Miss Taylor, Miss Aikin, or Miss Martineau-still dissenters. The "Concordance to the Bible" by Cruden, the "Scripture History" by Watts, and "Evans' Sketch of all Religions," may be called standard books of reference. A treasury of universal knowledge is wanted, and we have " Philipps' Million of Facts, "the" Penny Cyclopædia," or "Chambers' Edinburgh Journal." We ask for a gazetteer, and Mr. Josiah Conder is ready to offer his services; for a letter-writer, or a hymn-book, and Mr. James Montgomery supplies the very thing we need. Our Encyclopædias are edited by the Scotch Presbyterian professors; our Biographical Dictionaries, by Socinians, Kippis or Rees, or by Mr. Chalmers, whose name and extraction bespeak him to belong to a Foreign Church; while for Church History, which lies rather beyond the pretensions of our English dissenters, a member of the Kirk of Scotland has introduced us to the Lutherian Mosheim; or for a Dictionary of the Bible, we have naturalised amongst us the work of Calmet. If we enter a bookseller's shop, and ask for a practical commentary upon the Bible, immediately Matthew Henry Adam Clarke, and Doddridge, vie with each other in cheapness. If we search for a persent to give to a friend" Doddridge's Rise and Progress,' "James's Anxious Inquirer," "Baxter's Call to the Unconverted, or Saint's Rest," "Peter Parley," "Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress," "Pike's Early Piety, or Young Disciple," "Flavel's Saint Indeed," "Bates's Spiritual Per

X

fection," one of Krummacher's works," Howe's Redeemer's Tears," or the like, are thrust into our hands. In fact, it has come to pass that the mass of our popular practical Theology issues from the Religious Tract Society, of which about nineteen-twentieths are dissenters; and our general literature from the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, which is scarcely better.

The blame of such a state of things (though I am more anxious to call attention to the fact, than to cast blame on any quarter), is undoubtedly to be divided amongst several parties. Partly, also, it may be the result of accident. It may, and, I think, must be considered an instance of great negligence on the part of the Clergy, in whose hands so much of the education of the country rests, that they have not more often divested themselves of their learning, andgiven their less educated brethren the benefit of their stores of knowledge. But the fault mainly lies with the mass of Churchmen, who cause the demand for such books. Booksellers, of course, view their publications solely as matter of trade. They seek to provide such works of general reference as will be acceptable to the greatest number of purchasers. Dissenters, by that peculiar instinct with which they follow their own interests, never, if possible, buy a book which does not proceed from their own community. Churchmen, by that careless indifference which is the result, though a mistaken one, of conscious superiority, give no heed to such considerations. And so the Bookseller, finding that his publications, if coming from a dissenting source, will be universally received, but if coming from a Church source, will be only partially received, naturally prefers the dissenting writer. Another cause to which this is to be attributed, is undoubtedly the fact, that the greater number of dissenting ministers find themselves at their wits' end to gain an honest livelihood; and being usually possessed of just so much ability as will enable them to edit, or compile from the works of others, are content with the humble, but really important office; while not a few, we must believe, have enough of the wisdom of the serpent, to see that these books are the things of all others that guide the opinions of the mass of men.

The only attempt, of which I am aware, that has hitherto been made to obviate this very unfair and disadvantageous position in which we are placed as Churchmen, has been by the Committee of General Literature and Education appointed by the Society for Promoting Christian knowledge-(the Society itself apparently having a peculiar antipathy to any thing that might court the taste of the independent purchaser)-the nature of whose publications will be best described by saying, that we have usually to look twice to the title-page, in order to determine to what denomination of Christians the writer belongs. Now, surely, this ought not to be; Churchmen, who constitute four-fifths of the reading public, ought not to give way to the remaining fraction. The fruits of such a false system are already abundantly manifest in the circumstance, that the very class of persons who, by their independent station, are left to seek books for themselves, and who by reason of their slender education derive their opinions chiefly from the authority of others, are just those who have strayed most from the maternal bosom of the Church. And, it may be safely predicted, they will never be effectually recalled, till the Church has vindicated her rightful place as the dispenser of education, and the director of the mind, to every age and every station. T. C.

It has been found by the recent educational returns, that the dissenters have been equally active in that peculiar department of education, which, without requiring much qualification in the teacher, yet, opens a great door of influence, and a considerable prospect of gain. In one town in the West of England, out of thirty-seven Commercial Schools, only five were in the hands of Churchmen,