tributed, it is clear at a glance that the same means of instruction that would suffice for two-thirds between the ages mentioned, upon an average of five years' attendance, would suffice for the remaining third also, upon an average of three years and four months' attendance-the main difference being, that the same schools should be occu pied by three sets of pupils for a shorter time, in place of being occupied by two sets only for a longer time. Secondly, nothing could be gained as regards the amount of instruction communicated; all the time given to impart instruction to the one-third before reported as not being day-scholars at all, being so much taken from the time given to the instruction of the two-thirds before reported as being dayscholars, on an average of five years. In this case the number not receiving any sort of day-school instruction is, of course, diminishedwe may say gone; but the number not receiving such instruction to the extent necessary, if it is to be of any real value, is greatly increased. For it must be remembered, that in an average of three years and four months, embracing all classes, from the richest to the poorest, you have to calculate on full half the number of scholars as attending during spaces ranging from that standard downwards to the smallest possible time."-(pp. 287, 288.) But though we cannot avoid the conclusion that popular education among us falls really thus far below the wholesome average of a five years' attendance at our proper day-schools, taking in the country at large; and though we think the quality of our day-school instruction needs amendment hardly less than its quantity, we are not thereby reconciled to the passing of these Minutes of Council. On the contrary, we are deeply grieved that it should have been decided by her Majesty's ministers to attempt the remedy of these evils by a course of proceeding so unjust and cruel in its probable effects on evangelical dissenters. In the language of a Church of England journal, we are shut up to the alternative, 'either to receive the money and lose our character, or to reject it and lose our schools.' And from whose hand cometh this? 6 The difference between the intervention of the state in the formal endowment of religious teaching in schools, and in simply taking no other cognizance of it than to protect the rights of conscience, is described by Lord John Russell as a nice distinction.' Of course, when his lordship tells us that it so appears to him, we believe him, but we marvel at that saying; and if his lordship will look to the comment on his speech, even in a journal so much pledged to his support as the Globe newspaper, he will see that to other minds this is not a subtle distinction without a difference. The fact that religion will, under any circumstances, be taught in our day-schools, is unavoidable. We rejoice that it is so, and our conscience would not be at all dis turbed in the supposed case by that fact, the religious teaching being separate and optional. Nor is anything required from the hand of our rulers to secure this end beyond a just homage to the claims of conscience, and the courage becoming statesmen. Of the degree in which the temper of the clergy has been virtually, if not formally, consulted in the complexion of these Minutes, we have a striking proof in the Narrative of the Proceedings and Resolutions of the United Committees of Privileges and Education,' just published by the Wesleyans. From this document we learn, that it was not deemed safe by the Committee of Council to forbid the compulsory teaching of the Catechism, and other formularies of the church, in the National schools. The majority of the clergy, it is said, will not be controlled in this particular; and all the Committee of Council can say is, that they hope the clergy will not be found disposed to make any uncharitable use of their power in this respect; and that should cases of hardship arise, their lordships must see what may be done in relation to them. In short, this narrative' shows, that while the Committee of Council were of course perfectly willing to offer such satisfactory explanations as they might without inconvenience in regard to the Minutes; and were willing even to make some minor concessions with regard to the appointment and functions of inspectors, and in other lesser matters, nothing of a nature to remove the main objection of the Methodist on the one hand, or of the Congregationalist on the other, came within the object of the late conferences with these parties. The Methodists knowcannot but know that their great original objection to this scheme, as being a virtual endowment of all religions, remains untouched. The benefits of the project will not be reaped more largely by any class than by the Romanising portion of the clergy of the church of England; Unitarians are not so weak as to allow themselves to be excluded by the daily reading of the authorized version of the Scriptures; and Catholics are to be brought in specially, by new minutes for the purpose. Neverthelessstrange to say the united Wesleyan committees of privileges ' and education,' with all this clearly before them, have come to an almost unanimous resolution, to advise the Wesleyan societies ⚫ and congregations, under the present circumstances, not to offer any further connexional opposition, nor to take any further connexional action, in reference to the government measure of education'! One thing only would surprise us more than this decision, and that would be to see the Methodist body consenting to be bound by it. Did our choice lie at present, as it seemed to lie some short time since, between the measure contained in these Minutes or none, we should say now, as we said then-let there be none. But the divided state of Nonconformists themselves on the question, and the prevalence and strength of the contrary feeling elsewhere, have not left us that choice. It is not in our power to put a complete end to this scheme. The only choice now left to us, is between this project, which we deem intolerably bad, and something better which may be obtained in its place. That anything material can be done at the coming elections to alter the state of parties in the next House of Commons, is not so clear to us as it seems to be to many. The Whig candidate will find the new sympathy of Conservative churchmen sufficient, in most cases, to counterbalance the new resentment of liberal dissenters. Something may be done calmly, legitimately done in that way; but we would submit, that the just, the wise, the manly course for the aggrieved among dissenters to take, would be to employ themselves sedulously in the effort to possess the public mind with a just view of their conscientious difficulty in this case, and to set forth effectually the deep wrong which is now inflicted on that conscientiousness. In the three nights' debate on this subject, scarcely an intelligible reference was made to this ground of objection. That god-send to honourable members-that it belongs not to governments to concern themselves with anything of this nature-was hunted down from all quarters, and the ancient landmarks of Nonconformist principle were almost wholly lost sight of in this fight against a purely political dogma. Never, we think, did the opponents of the Church and State principle lose so fine an opportunity for securing to that principle an ample discussion in our senate. It may not be too late to recover their lost ground; but to continue to make the dogma just mentioned their rallying point, as many have hitherto done, will, we humbly conceive, be worse, much worse than useless. We will not venture to speak of the comparative numbers of evangelical dissenters who hold the views to which we have given expression in this instance, but we certainly have the means of knowing that they are many, and that they include a large proportion of our most able and thoughtful men. Nor would we be understood as censuring men who are of another judgment. We cheerfully cede the liberty we claim-a liberty which nothing shall deter us from exercising. We know how to respect earnest feeling even when we regard it as leading the judgment astray. 552 CRITICISMS ON BOOKS. 1. Evangelical Synopsis. 2. East on Forgiveness of Sin. 3. Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. 4. The Churchman in Scotland. 5. Mosaic Creation and Geology. 6. The Convict Ship. 7. England, Rome, and Oxford. 14. Miss Corner's History of Rome. 22. Churchmanship of the New Testament. 26. Jones on the Christian Ministry. 33. The Neibelungen Treasure. 35. Manning on Religious Tests. THE ARTS. 40. Wilkie's Sketches. 41. Christening of the Prince of Wales The London Missionary Society. Note on the Article on Phrenology. I. Evangelical Synopsis. The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments: with the Text according to the authorised version, and Marginal Readings and Parallel passages; and Notes explanatory and practical, selected from the writings of the most esteemed Divines and Biblical Critics, of various Denominations: interspersed with Original Remarks. By INGRAM COBBIN, A. M. Three vols. royal quarto. George Berger, Holywell-street, London. We wish to commend this highly meritorious publication to the favour of our readers, and we think we shall best serve that end by calling their attention to the following extract from its preface:— When so many commentaries are already published, some reason should be given for introducing yet another to the world. Have we not HENRY, GILL, SCOTT, ADAM CLARKE, MANT-not to mention others? True; and it must be admitted that each of these have their peculiar excellencies; but HENRY is too voluminous, so also is GILL, besides being too full of rabbinical learning for general readers, and too strongly prejudiced in favour of Supra-lapsarian principles, and other peculiarities of his creed, to treat many passages of sacred writ with impartiality. Scott is too elaborate, and often heavy; and while he borrows much from Henry, he frequently does not improve his original. ADAM CLARKE has disfigured his work by heaps of learned lumber gathered together from all quarters; and he does violence to many passages in support of some doctrines not even generally received by his own denomination, but which he held with great tenacity. MANT's work is the nearest resemblance to the Evangelical Synopsis; but while it contains numerous extracts which are most admirable in defence of some of the grand truths of the Christian religion, it is lacking in what is termed evangelical truth, and, like the commentaries of GILL and CLARKE, it leaves one void-which ought always to be filled up in A FAMILY BIBLE-viz., it has no reflections for family reading; moreover, with few exceptions, it is confined to writers of the Church of England; and thus many of the most excellent commentators are left wholly unnoticed. 'The advantages of the Evangelical Synopsis are, that it combines much of the best of all these works, HENRY excepted, whose valuable passages are not so often quoted as others, because it is presumed they are in the libraries of no small number of those who will purchase this work. GILL has more frequently been used, because his work is not in very general circulation, it being too expensive and sectarian; but many valuable explanations are gathered from it, no writer being more judicious where his favourite and peculiar tenets do not interfere; he, however, often spends much time in vain, in stating what a text does not mean, and here his notes have been dispensed with, the affirmative part only being extracted. SCOTT is very often used, because he is extremely judicious, and, on disputed questions, he is perhaps more candid and free from sectarianism than any other commentator. Many of ADAM CLARKE's critical notes and Oriental illustrations have also been adopted, and the editor has profited by the former industry of D'OYLEY and MANT. These, however, are but a few of those authors who are quoted, a list of whom will appear at the end of the work, embracing eminent men of various ages, countries, and denominations.'-(pp. 1, 2.) We may add to this full account of the plan of the work, that the names of the writers from whom extracts are taken, are uniformly given. So far, also, as we have examined these three handsome volumes, the editor appears to have executed his design with great judgment and ability. The commentary is neither too elaborate nor too critical to be acceptable to general readers. On this account, and on account of its complete freedom from sectarianism, it is admirably adapted to family use. We give it our full and cordial commenda tion. II. The Forgiveness of Sin, and the Possibility of Attaining a Personal Assurance of it. By the REV. T. EAST. 12mo, pp. 185. Maclehose, Glasgow. 1847. The age in which we live is little favourable to self-inspection. Religious people seem everywhere more disposed to be employed in correcting their neighbours, than in the study of themselves. We are sometimes tempted to think that hatred of other men's religion is tacitly construed as the best evidence that men are themselves very religious. The contemplative has given place to the active, the personal to the relative. But this book, from the pen of Mr. East, is not addressed to such minds. It is a book for the devout, the spiritual-for minds which know what is meant by the Christian warfare. It presents a clear and judicious exposition of a momentous doctrine; and, in its most material points, is much such a book as Dr. Owen would have written had he lived in the nineteenth century. III. A Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ, and its Relation to the Principles and Practice of Christianity. By WILLIAM STROUD, M.D. 8vo, pp. 486. Hamilton & Co., London. 1847. This is a book deserving much more attention than we can now bestow upon it It may be described as a contribution of science to theology; and may be taken as an illustration of the manner in which the ever brightening light of modern science may be made tributary to the greater force and completeness of Christian evidence. The theological portion of the work is highly creditable to Dr. Stroud's learning and judgment. |