merging, against which we protest, with all the energy of a sincere and zealous conviction. THE CHURCH EXTENSION AND CLERGY ENDOWMENT BILL As we are decided friends to the Government of Sir Robert Peel, speaking politically, and as Conservatives, we had hoped to have seen presented to Parliament a measure of a very comprehensive and general character; but it is not large enough to satisfy our feelings and wishes, though we admit it to be a prudent, and, doubtless, a useful measure, on a small scale. It will not effect a tithe of what we desired and hoped, but it will do something in behalf of Church extension. This measure of the Government is for the appointment and support of additional clergymen in the districts where, at present, there exists such lamentable spiritual destitution. The plan neither involves any grant of public money, nor the erection of any new edifices. It will be recollected that when the right hon. baronet was in office, in 1834, he appointed an Ecclesiastical Commission to examine into the revenues of certain bishoprics, cathedrals, and other ecclesiastical establishments. The commission recommended the transfer of certain surplus receipts to a new fund, now producing 25,000l. per annum. Out of this fund 16,700. have been applied yearly to the augmentation of small livings, and other analogous purposes, requiring altogether, indeed, about 32,000l. Now the proposal of Sir Robert Peel is to authorize the advance of 600,000l. by the Queen Anne's Bounty Board to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on the security of the before-mentioned revenues of the ecclesiastical fund existing and hereafter accruing. This advance, to the extent of 30,000l. per annum, the Premier proposes to apply in endowments for the clergy of the Established Church. Is this measure satisfactory? That is the first question which suggests itself on reading the speech of Sir Robert. Will it meet the immense evil of spiritual destitution? Will it relieve multitudes of districts of the wants they feel, and the removal of which is essential to the physical as well as to the moral amelioration of the poor? Sir Robert has praised his own scheme because it is practicable-because it requires no public grant of money to carry it into effect-because Dissenters cannot oppose it-and because, at any rate, it is a "commencement." But are these adequate reasons for sincere and zealous Churchmen? We hold that grants of public money are never so well or so wisely voted as when their object is Church extension, and the moral and religious instruction of the poor. Far, then, from rejoicing that a vote of public money for Church purposes has not been applied for, we deeply regret it. We should like to see a call of the house rigorously enforced on such an occasion, and we should be curious to examine the lists of the "fors" and the "againsts" on the division. Sir Robert Peel need not fear the Dissenters, if he will only place confidence in the Church; and real, bona fide Churchmen can only confide in him in proportion as they perceive in him a determination to uphold the national religion and the national Church, as the Church and religion of an immense majority of the people. Still, we repeat, the measure is not a bad one, and, as far as it goes, is entitled to support. THE FACTORY BILL AND ITS EDUCATIONAL CLAUSES. Never did any measure, so just in itself, and so kind and considerate to Dissenters, meet with such uncalled-for, violent, and desperate resistance, as the Factory Bill, and especially the Educational clauses, of Sir James Graham. This resistance proceedsFirst, from that mass of mankind, which, in every great community, is opposed to all religious teaching and to all moral coercion. They hate religion, the Church, the clergy, and all which stands in the way of the self-gratification, of their own impurity and vice. They hate restraints of any kind on lust and vice, and they wish to see others as base and bad as themselves. Secondly, the opposition proceeds from those who are infidels: not merely practically so (and, oh! how immense a number there are of these in Great Britain), but likewise those who are so theoretically, and who write, teach, lecture, and even preach against Christianity. Thirdly, the opposition comes from Socinians, Free-thinkers, Socialists, and a mass of people who will have it that they are religious people, but who will not submit to the Bible, to the Church, to the Prayer-book, or to the orthodox teaching and doctrines of orthodox Christians. Fourthly, the opposition proceeds from the teachers of utilitarianism, from the schoolmasters and conductors of Lancasterian schools, and from a host of persons engaged in teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, leaving the instruction of the children, in morals and religion, to the parents, forsooth! of their neglected offspring. Fifthly, the opposition proceeds from the Romanists, who fear that the children of their poorer members will attend at the Church of England schools when they shall be in active operation. Sixthly, the opposition comes from the Quakers, who, being friends to a certain sort of generally moral and religious teaching, but enemies to anything very specific, oppose any measure which shall be favourable to Church establishments, for which they have a most decided abhorrence. Seventhly, the opposition proceeds from the Wesleyans, who fear that their school system, through which they influence whole masses of parents and adults, will be interfered with, if this bill should pass, and who, whilst they profess to love the Church, only do so when she is not active, not energetic, and not enterprizing. And, eighthly, the opposition proceeds from the Dissenters generally-we mean the Independents, Baptists, Presbyterians, Scotch Dissenters in England, Calvinistic Methodists, and followers of Whitfield and Lady Huntingdon-on the broad principle, that whatever is favourable to Church influence and to Church progress, is most unpalatable to them. They are conspiring to overthrow the Church. Their intentions now begin to be known. The secret can no longer be kept; and as Sir James Graham's bill, in some degree, and to a certain extent, acknowledges the right of the clergy to teach the people, this measure is peculiarly odious to the "three denominations." Every measure is resorted to by these combined opponents. Petitions are got up in the most disgraceful manner. To obtain signatures the most astounding untruths are uttered and the spite and malignity of the enemies of the bill are evinced by acts which, for their vulgarity and want of good feeling, have never been exceeded. Even the Prayer-book has been trampled under the feet of a Baptist teacher, in the presence of a Wesleyan chairman and of a three denominations" audience. Yet to these men, wild and impassioned as they are, Sir James Graham condescended to listen: objections were not only heard, but endeavours made to remove them; and, finally, the Government consented materially to alter the original measure. Are But, as is always the case, those concessions have very far from satisfied those who made them, and the cries for the withdrawal of the bill have become so vehement, that it is rumoured the Government will adopt that plan, unless it can satisfy the Wesleyan body. God forbid that this rumour should be true! God forbid that the Government of this Church land should yield to clamour and outrage! God forbid that the Government should refuse to press the measure, because it is not popular with Dissenters! If the Government will bring this bill fairly to the vote, it will be carried. Dissenters the majority or the minority? We have stated the eight categories opposed to the bill, and we do not hesitate to state that the Churchmen of this land will far, very far, outweigh them. Let, then, on this occasion, the experiment be made! Let the votes be taken! Let not the "white feather" be shown on such a subject as this! We know that the Government is surrounded with many difficulties, and that it has to contend, step by step and inch by inch, with political and religious opponents; but it is for this very reason that we would press on Sir James Graham the absolute necessity of carrying his Factory Bill. THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND SCHISM AND ITS OPERATION ON ESTABLISHMENTS GENERALLY. The Churchman cannot of course sympathize either with the Scotch Kirk, or with the Scotch separatists, at the present moment, but it cannot be an idle spectator of passing events. The existence of the Kirk of Scotland is a fact. It is connected with the State. The Lord High Commissioner is appointed by the crown. sions of the General Assembly on religious questions are law; and although the Episcopal Church of Great Britain holds the discipline of the Presbyterians not to be in harmony with that established by Christ and his apostles, still it does not forget that by the terms of the union with Scotland that Church is recognized as the Kirk of the country. It is then a sad, a very painful task to record, that a large portion of the ministers of the Scotch Kirk have separated from it, and that another schism has now to be added to the multitude which have already existed. The following observations from the Times are worth preserving :— "Unreasonable as the authors of this movement have shown themselves in the course of the negociations which have taken place, it cannot be denied that the manner of this their last act-as members of the Scotch establishment_ was marked by much ɛeemliness and quiet. Not much, indeed, can be augured as to the future, from this present sobriety, which many circumstances conspired to dictate. The more violent of the party, who have led their friends to adopt the "fortiter in re," would hardly at present quarrel with them for adding to it, the "suaviter in modo." Their party is comprehensive enough to make cautious movements necessary, if they would not alienate a large class of their less violent supporters. They formed an apparent majority in the Assembly, which it was desirable to preserve, but which the subsequent proceedings of that body might have diminished; and their act was met, as was natural, by no opposition or comment. Finally, their ostensible leader, Dr. Chalmers, to whom they would naturally and largely defer, and whose name, we apprehend, contributes in no slight degree to unite the somewhat discordant materials of which the seceding body is composed, is a man to whom-deficient as he may be in that intellectual depth and penetration which his position would seem to demand his worst enemies have never denied the merits of mildness and amiability. He at least would struggle to avoid the pain and indecorum of a stormy and personal conflict, and this more especially as being the proclaimed champion of that principle of "establishment" to which this act is about to administer so rude a shock." 6 * * * "And now as to the future. The Kirk is split. So much is clear. What is to become of the fragments? What will be the effect of the secession upon those who remain in connexion with the State? What are the prospects of those who have gone forth? We do not pretend to predict. But with regard to the latter, we cannot help suspecting that they are destined, and that before long, to undergo another subdivision-if, at least, Dr. Chalmers, as he is their present leader, so is the representative of any considerable class among them. He, though involved in this separation, shows himself most averse from violence or extremity. He will (it seems) ally himself with no democrats-with no voluntaries.Though we quit the Establishment (he says), it is right that it be understood that we go out on the Establishment principle' (Applause). To be more plain and more particular, voluntaries are mistaken if they claim us as voluntaries.' His whole speech is against demagogues, agitators, despisers of authority, trust in a multitude, and popularity-hunters; and the establishment paragraph above quoted from the protest itself, with the reservation it embodies, indicates, in one sense, a reluctance to close the door even now against fresh overtures from the State. How far this will suit the politics of those whom we apprehend to have really guided the movement, we do not know, but we can guess. If the new Kirk, once fairly set in motion, can preserve the temperate line which Dr. Chalmers seems to contemplate, it will certainly be, to us and to the world, a highly new and unexpected phenomenon. Other spirits, and stronger wills, will not allow of this hesitating, and, to a schismatical body, paralyzing policy. Such Dr. Chalmers will have the arduous task of regulating a task of which we cannot help divining that he felt the difficulty while throwing out his sidelong allusion to the heart-burnings and jealousies which might break out among themselves, for even Paul and Barnabas had their jealousies and contendings.' He will feel it more and more as those stronger measures of aggression come under consideration, by which alone the 'adhering' body can maintain their ground against a system holding the same doctrines as themselves, but possessing the advantages (in Dr. Chalmers's eyes, we should have supposed almost inappreciable) of an Establishment." We shall watch with great interest the proceedings of Dr. Chalmers and his "Free" Scotch Kirk, though not without, at the same time, thanking our heavenly Father that we are not members or promoters of this new schism. W. E. Painter, Church and State Gazette Office, 342, Strand, London, Printer. THE CHURCHMAN, A MAGAZINE IN SUPPORT OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. [NEW AND ENLARGED SERIES.] JULY, 1843. MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN; OR, TRACTARIANISM WEIGHED IN THE BALANCES, AND FOUND WANTING. We have arrived at a crisis in the history of the new schism in the Church of England, which, if well examined, prized, and applied, must lead to vast and permanent good. We object, as much as the Oxford theologians can do, to anything approaching to personality in Church or religious controversies; and we would, as far as possible, confine our attacks on the new heresy to the principles, and not to the men. But this cannot always be done. Those who have attacked Protestantism, and our own Protestant Church, have hurled their ungodly weapons and missiles against Luther and Cranmer, as much, nay, more, than against their systems. We should then have the right, as mere disputants, to call the Tractarians "Puseyites," and on the defeat of their chief or leader, to rejoice with great joy. But their example we will not imitate; and although we are most exceedingly thankful that the new Oxford heresy has been boldly and righteously attacked at its head-quarters, in the silencing Dr. Pusey by his interdiction from preaching in the precincts of the University for two years, yet we would desire to regard this as a providential interposition, to prevent the further spread of doctrines which directly conduct those who believe them to the Romish Church. It has long been a source of satisfaction to us to know and feel, that notwithstanding the deplorable want we have of an acting and energetic CONVOCATION, and notwithstanding this want becomes more and more visible every month, yet, that with but two or three exceptions, our spiritual governors, the archbishops and bishops of the Church, have, in the most direct and positive manner, condemned by far the greatest part of the doctrines, interpretations, and fallacies of the Oxford school. The condemnation of Tract 90 was a great event; but the suspension of Dr. Pusey, as a teacher of heresy, is far greater. It is the death blow to the system, as one of Church adoption. The system is henceforth a heresy, in the judgment of all sound Churchmen. It is no longer, H H |