of Oxford." His publication, though uncalled for, is written with temper and great regard to truth. The door of controversy being thus opened, Strictures on the Sermon and Remarks" appeared, evidently the work of a somewhat youthful author, well pleased to make a beginning of his prowess in such good company as that of a Regius Professor. Unfortunately he is obliged to escape the charge of gross ignorance by pleading guilty to very considerable unfairness. In his work he tells us he has a book by his side, of which it appears, from a postscript, he had only an incorrect and partial translation. Next in order is a Reply of Mr. Bulteel's to the Remarks of Dr. Burton; then a very well written pamphlet of a "Philippus Anti-Osiander, S. T. P. ;" and, in conclusion, a somewhat unintelligible production of a "nobody knows or is to know who."

The points in dispute seem to us resolvable into three; 1st, the Calvinistic scheme, so well known and so frequently discussed, that little new can be said of it; 2d, the conduct of the Colleges in the University in giving their testimonials for Orders, and incidentally the lives of the Clergy; 3d, the right of the Crown to the appointment of Bishops.

We shall examine them in a reversed order. Mr. B. is as stout a supporter of Church Articles as ourselves, though we may explain those of the Church of England differently. Does he think that if an unlimited power of electing their ministers were given to the people, it would not have the effect of substituting their opinions, whatever they might be, for those of one distinct Church ?-Much more would this be the case were Bishops elected by their subordinate ministers. As long as human nature is corrupt, iniquity will cleave, even to our holy things; and reason and religion will be, in the greater portion of mankind, if not obliterated, yet easily warped from the truth by prejudice and passion. As no internal discipline has ever been able, in any Church, to prevent this, we may reasonably infer that it is not improper to have recourse to external arrangements to counteract it: and these have been found, in the case of our own Church, most efficacious. Whether our kings and their ministers have generally known Christ or not, we shall not determine; but we may safely affirm that they have constantly and very generally recommended virtuous and unexceptionable men for the chief ministry of the Church. David appointed their courses for the priests, and throughout Scripture we read that godly princes had great authority in matters relating to the service of God. Under the dispensation of Melchisedeck the same man was king and priest; and the connexion between the offices it has been one great principle of the English Church, since the

* Οὐδεὶς.

Reformation, to uphold. We must make one quotation from Mr. Bulteel himself, which, we think, will settle the question. "I grieve that those highly honoured and venerable men, who had light enough to draw up the Thirty-seventh Article, and their successors after them, should not have had courage to act up to the principles they professed."-Reply, p. 54. When a man understands the sentiments of others so much better than they did themselves, no one of mere rdinary attainment should presume to dispute with him. We believe the Reformers understood their own meaning, Mr. B. thinks not; further comment must be unnecessary, except a hint that, perhaps, in some other of the Articles as well as this, the sense put on them by their authors, and received by their successors, was not the same with that of Mr. B.

The second point we have to examine relates to the giving testimonials for Orders. Here Mr. B. has considerable advantage over us. He has lived with a gay and somewhat dissolute set of men. That testimonials have often been denied to such we know; but of the exact scrutiny into character made in every College, or the means which those in authority have of discovering vices or errors, we are ignorant. Having been a Fellow of a College too, Mr. B.'s authority may be supposed good. Dr. Burton says, that "increasing care is used in this point; "the author of the Friendly Letter asserts that "the case is not general; " and with this opinion we ourselves are inclined to concur. That testimonials have been malignantly "withheld from piety, honesty, and sobriety," on account of any peculiar tenets professed by persons of such a character, or, in other words, on account of their Calvinistic interpretation of the Articles, we are very much inclined to doubt; indeed, it has been declared to us that such is not the fact. 66 'Something like a case," says the author of the Friendly Letter, "may have reached your (Mr. B.'s,) knowledge." We believe this to have occurred a few years ago. Whether in that case testimonials were withheld on account of the belief of the sufferers, or on account of a very flagrant breach of academic and ecclesiastical discipline, can be determined neither by Mr. B. nor ourselves: we only know that such a breach was committed, and the withholding of the testimonials appears to us its imperative consequence. In a place like the University, where so many high-spirited young men are to be kept in subordination, regulations cannot be with safety wantonly broken through. Attempts to create schism and lessen authority must be instantly put a stop to, nor can, under any pretences, be safely encouraged.

In the amusements of the Clergy we are no friends to ascetism. In every thing he undertakes, moderation, more difficult than abstinence, should be the distinguishing trait of the Clergyman, and we see

no harm in his partaking, in moderation, in any innocent amusement. Ascetism may please a few morose and disappointed people, and certainly is a very effectual mode of gaining the applause of the vulgar; though, we believe, if left to themselves, these last would be very indifferent on the subject, and be fully satisfied with clerical moderation. However, the former will not let the natural malignancy of human nature sleep among them; they force it into action, and ascetism-hopeful child of pride and envy-is made the basis of popular esteem, and the test of Christian feeling.

On the third point, the Calvinistic interpretation of the Articles, we are now to speak. The present controversy seems to turn upon the opinions of the early Fathers and the Reformers. Dr. Burton's knowledge of ecclesiastical history is comprehensive and accurate, and the doctrines of Predestination, and particularly Election, it appears to be satisfactorily proved, never occupied much attention till the time of Augustine. For this writer's strong enforcement of them, too, personal reasons may be given; and perhaps the tenets of the sectarian monk* had some weight in forming the Predestinarian opinions of the early reformer, Luther. These were confirmed by casual controversy; and the opinions of one occupied, as Luther was, in opposing prevailing errors of an opposite tendency, should not be received without hesitation and allowance. On this subject, too, the present Lutheran Churches agree with the Church of England, and hold a middle course between the making Predestination a matter of faith, and considering it incompatible with the justice of God. Of our own Article on this point, we think that it is purposely ambiguous. Our Reformers seem to have been obliged to say something on the subject, but hardly to have known what judgment to form on it, and therefore refer us to Scripture for the truth; thus leaving us at liberty to acknowledge the incomprehensibleness of the subject, and to give our own interpretation of those passages of Scripture in which the word occurs. On the point of free Grace, difference of opinion seems to exist rather in regard to the manner than the matter. No member of the Church of England will assert man's absolute desert, though some may argue for a desert, allowed of God, which affects not the original gift, but the continuance of grace. And, after all, there are things which God only knows; and as they are not mentioned in any of our public formularies of faith, we think they should not occupy the pulpit so exclusively as some among us wish them to do.

*This term is not used invidiously. There were strong sectarian divisions among the monastic orders. The Augustinians, Luther's order, were Predestinarians. Predestination is by no means an exclusive doctrine of the Reformation; many good Romanists, of an austere turn of mind, held it, though it was not generally approved.

The service and prayers of our Church are certainly far from Calvinistic in their form and tendency, and from these and the homilies must be the most legitimate interpretation of the Articles. Of justification by faith we are true believers; but our belief is, that a faith, unevidenced by works, is no Scripture faith at all; and on no point, do we think, has more argument been used to less purpose than on this.

But further to examine these unsatisfactory and endless questions

neither our time nor space allows. We shall always regret to find them the subject of controversy, since it is rarely either party is convinced, and it is of infinite injury to religion. We are not very much surprised at Mr. Bulteel's holding the opinions he does. Some men are naturally moderate, others are always in extremes, and their religious feelings will experience the bias of the natural temper. It is highly dangerous to the interest of religion to have this bias attributed to the direct influence of God's Spirit. Yet reason and argument will never change this opinion. Like other apparently injurious effects of nature, it may often be more safely counteracted than resisted; and it is no doubt, in cases like the present, appointed by God for his own good purposes.

To conclude, we wish this controversy had never arisen. No one, who thinks for an instant, would believe that so common-place a discourse could be really, in any extraordinary degree, palatable to the University. Does not every one know (it is with shame we write it) how great an influence (as little by the bye at Oxford as at most places) fancy and curiosity have in filling a place of worship? How desirous do we see many of sitting under (as they call it) a favourite preacher; and (on very similar principles) how many were present at St. Mary's because they were pretty certain the University would be the subject of abuse! How many, even of those to be attacked, came to hear the manner of it! If, however, any one interests himself on the subject, we must recommend to them "Dr. Burton's Remarks," which are fair and impartial; and the "Friendly Letter," for its sensible and appropriate observations: but as the discussion seems now to have passed over, our wish and desire would be not to have it renewed; and we can assure those who are fond of such subjects, that this controversy of the nineteenth, is far, very far inferior, in the learning shewn and exertions used by those engaged, to similar disputes of the seventeenth century. Charity, says the Apostle, thinketh no evil, but rejoiceth in the truth. The latter, indeed, different as are our own sentiments, Mr. B. may do in regard to the former part of the Apostle's precept, we can only say we have rarely seen a more gratuitous assumption of evil than in the Sermon before us.

LITERARY REPORT.