An Introduction to Greek Composition. Part II. By the Rev. J. Kenrick. London: Murray. THIS part (unlike the first) is original, and is a most useful and sensible exercise book, by a very excellent scholar. Edinburgh Cabinet Library-Vol. XVI.-Lives of eminent Zoologists, from Aristotle to Linnæus. By W. M'Gillivray. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. 1834. THIS book does more than it professes, for it not only contains lives of authors, but a sketch of their views on all the great subjects in natural history. The lives of Ray and Linnæus are full of interest, and the view of their works is very valuable. Does Mr. M'Gillivray do full justice to Aristotle? Altogether, the Edinburgh Cabinet Library is a very valuable collection, and seems never to send out any works which are not carefully executed. Sketches. By Mrs. Sigourney. London: Ward. 1834. THE language of this writer is dreadfully exaggerated, and so are the feelings occasionally. But there is often, likewise, great tenderness, depth, and beauty in the feelings, and much interest in the story. The Christian Keepsake and Missionary Annual for 1835. Edited by the Rev. W. Ellis. London: Fisher and Jackson. THIS is exactly the sort of book which is to the taste of this age. It is very beautiful in decorations, and there is a pleasing mixture of all sorts of writers and opinions :-Archdeacon Wrangham and various other clergymen, with various opinions, and dissenting ministers of as many, tales, love poems, something from Mrs. Opie and Bernard Barton (the representatives of the Quakers, by the bye), James Montgomery, and Mr. Wilberforce, with very beautiful engravings of all sorts of places and people; among others, a Chinese evangelist, and the late Mrs. Stally brass. If this does not please all sorts of people, what book can? As to giving any opinion on all the opinions in it, that would be wild. It is to be hoped that, next year, this very beautiful set of plates will be in a less offensive cover. What could induce Mr. Ellis to allow two medallions as ornaments on the book, the one containing a head of our Lord, the pendant, one of the most filthy and disgusting of the Eastern deities? Fisher's Drawing-Room Scrap Book, with poetical Illustrations by L. E. L. London: Fisher and Jackson. THIS is perhaps the most splendid annual which has yet appeared. It is in 4to, with no less than thirty-six engravings of exquisite beauty. It is hard to say whether the portraits (those of the late King, Mr. Wilkie, Šir Jas. Mackintosh, Dr. Gregory, and the Miss Porters,) or the landscapes, especially the architectural drawings of Durham and Furness Abbey, deserve most praise. How it can be executed for the money is the only wonder. Switzerland. By W. Beattie, M.D., with drawings by Mr. Bartlett. London: Virtue. No. 1. Four excellent plates and a vignette, with twelve pages of letter-press, for two shillings. Hints toward forming a correct Opinion on the Question of Altering the Liturgy. By a Lay Member of the University of Oxford. Rivingtons. 1834. THIS is a pamphlet for serious minds; i. e., minds which are in earnest in the great matters of religion, and wish to form a judgment on the question treated in it, as one of great practical importance. It contains a plain argument, soberly, sensibly, and convincingly handled. Any one may write some flippancy in favour of alteration of the Liturgy, or some violence in favour of resisting it, but no conviction, either on one side or the other, follows in readers of good feeling and principle, who in such cases often rise from the consideration of the subject more perplexed than when they sat down to it. But it is not at all easy to take a plain, straightforward view; and it will be well, indeed, for our church, if, in this hour of trial, the multitude of her laity discover the same rational and reverent estimate of the excellence of the church services which is displayed in this publication. MISCELLANEA. LIBERAL NOTIONS OF EQUITY AND THE LAW OF THE LAND. THERE is something very satisfactory in ascertaining, when an adversary accuses you of this or that crime, or of deficiency in this or that virtue, exactly what his notions on the point in question are. The "Morning Chronicle" has lately stated that equity and the law of the land alike had long demanded that the inequalities in church incomes should not be tolerated. What this writer's notions of equity are may be gathered from another article in the same day's paper respecting Mr. Beresford and his curate. Of the merits of the dispute between these gentlemen, as only one side of the question has appeared, some persons would think it as equitable not to judge. Of course the "Morning Chronicle" thinks it quite equitable to do so, as the side which we have is the curate's, and therefore enables the " Morning Chronicle" to abuse rectors and Beresfords in the mass. But one point we have. Mr. Beresford had, it appears, paid the mass of the curate's salary; but a very small balance of 6l. 108. remained due. The curate had hired some land of Mr. Beresford, for which he was to pay 77. 10s. per annum, and thus there was a small balance against the curate. The" Morning Chronicle" adopts the language of some other paper, and (very honestly so stating things that 67. 10s. might be supposed to be the curate's whole salary) dwells at great length on the cruel hardship of calling on the curate to pay the rent of the land which he had hired! Thus the "Morning Chronicle's" notion of equity is this,—that, in any dealings between a richer and a poorer person, although the richer man is to pay his debt in full to the poorer, the poorer is not to pay one farthing to the richer! These may be very pretty notions of equity now while the destructives are needy, and before they have made prey of men's property; but when they have enriched themselves, it will be curious to see whether their notions of equity on this point will not undergo a very considerable change. When, however, this is the notion of equity entertained by the "Morning Chronicle," it is quite natural to find that he says, that equity demands that the richer livings should be plundered to increase the poorer. The case is this. All livings were once in possession of certain property. An arbitrary act, under sanction of Parliament, robbed one-half of them of their property, and therefore equity demands that the unplundered half should give up part of what was left them to supply the deficiency! How safe will every man's possessions be in the halcyon days when the holders of such notions protect the holders of property. They now only demand that those whom they dislike should be plundered; but, when they have the power, they will not be slow to enforce their equitable demands. But the learned Theban declares, that the law of the land, as well as equity, demands that the richer livings should be compelled to share their vast riches with the poorer. His history is as sound as his equity. By the law of the land he means the payment of first fruits and tenths. The simple fact is this. The popes, by the exercise of the iniquitous power which they possessed, forced the clergy, most unwillingly, to give them the first fruits and tenths of their benefices. And successive valuations were made. At the Reformation, the crown took what the pope then had,-namely, the right of exacting the first fruits and tenths according to the existing valuation; and it continues so to exact them, though, since Queen Anne's time, it no longer converts them to its own purposes, but gives them very properly to the augmentation of small livings! The "Morning Chronicle," knowing not one word of all this, (for it is only just to suppose that it does not wilfully conceal what it does know,) states the case as if the law of the land, some livings being poorer than others; had always directed that a certain proportional part of the better livings should, from the beginning, be devoted to augmenting them, and that, as the value of the livings increased from century to century, this proportional part should, of course, increase too. Such are the fabrics which ignorance rears! That Parliament could compel the clergy to pay their real tenths need not be said; and so it could compel them to pay the fourths or the thirds of their benefices to church purposes, or to any other. But one act would be exactly as arbitrary as the other. It would be a simple act of tyranny exercised on those who do not appear to have the power of resisting; and it is one among the thousand lessons which every day gives as to the principles of what are called liberals, that we find them always ready and anxious, without a scruple, to exercise the most enormous oppression, and inflict the most arbitrary injuries on those whom they hate, and whom they think they have the power of oppressing. Every successive valuation was a mere act of papal tyranny then; every successive valuation would be an act of liberal tyranny now. Hereafter, should any sound notions of equity and freedom prevail, these things will cause wonder. Since the above was written, the Beresford case has, very fortunately for Mr. Beresford, been set forth, in a most extraordinary pamphlet, by Mr. Lyons, the curate, of which a full account shall be given in the next Number. THE "PATRIOT." THIS paper is represented, by dissenters, as far more respectable than the "Christian Advocate." But, to say the truth, although the Christian Advocate" is certainly rather the most vulgar of the two, and has the appearance of being written by adventurers on speculation, to see if they can get into circulation by their vehemence, it is not one whit more substantially unjust or unfair than the " Patriot." In the last number, a specimen was given of the "Patriot's" mode of dealing with facts relating to the character of the clergy. Two of its observations, made since, will illustrate its fairness in matters of argument. One of its leading articles last month was a bitter attack on the clergy for their unappeasable hatred to dissent, and their decided resolution to oppose every claim made by dissenters to relief. Now, let it be asked of any respectable dissenter, except the editor of the "Patriot," if he is a respectable dissenter, whether the clergy have been the causes of the present lamentable state of warfare between the church and dissenters? Did the clergy begin this warfare by maligning the characters of dissenting ministers, VOL. VI.-Nov. 1834. 4 B by trying to deprive dissenters of every privilege which they enjoy, and by holding them up to public odium? Five years ago, could the dissenters allege that there was any active warfare against them, or indeed any warfare at all, except such as must always exist on points of doctrine between different parties? Who began it? Who have tried systematically, by tracts, newspapers, periodicals, meetings, and societies, to hold up the clergy as ignorant, proffigate, and regardless of every duty,-the church as the source of all the evils of the land, and its property as the height of oppression and mischief? Who have persevered in this warfare, in a spirit which has at last disgusted even their own better-minded men, and carried it to lengths disgraceful to men who call themselves Christians? And, after this, the “Patriot” attempts to represent the clergy as the unappeasable enemies of the dissenters ! But the clergy, too, resist every claim of the dissenters, says the "Patriot," and, with singular veracity, then proceeds to enumerate them! The "Patriot” knows as well as possible, that this is so entire an untruth, that petition after petition was circulated by the clergy, expressly saying that, as to marriages and civil registration, they had not the shadow of an objection, but cheerfully left the matter to the wisdom of Parliament. Out of five claims, they willingly withdraw all opposition to two. Yet they will yield nothing, says the "Patriot!" This would not perhaps be worth remarking, were not the "Patriot” appealed to as the organ of the respectable dissenters. Surely they should prevent their organ from making such statements as these. THE "PATRIOT" AGAIN. The "Patriot" has been lately repeating the usual crambe of the dissenting periodicals about the number of churchmen; i. e., reproaching this magazine with reckoning all those as churchmen who have no religious belief at all. Some of the dissenting writers very decently and charitably say, that whereever there is a person who has no religion whatever, he is always a churchman. The simple fact is this:-For several years the dissenters, in order to enforce their claims, made every sort of extravagant assertion about their numbers. They were double, treble of churchmen,-nay, tenfold as many; they were a full half,-nay, two-thirds of the whole population. Ought such a body to be neglected or resisted? This magazine, with the aid of that ablest of all English periodicals, the "Standard," first undertook the task of dissecting these statements, and exposing their falsehood. The work was so fully done, that the number of dissenters sunk, in all probability, to much below a sixth of the whole population; and, at all events, their own statements, when examined, fell so far short of their assertions, that they were compelled to desist from this topic (except occasionally, when it is thought that a falsehood may be hazarded without fear of detection), and their wrath against the parties who detected them is inextinguishable. It is very likely that, in this magazine, and in other church works, in the hurry of writing, there was carelessness in discriminating the actual number of bona fide church members. The argument of the dissenters was, "We are so many, and you must attend to us." The answer to this was, "We will shew that you are not so many." "That answer was all that was of any consequence; and that answer, as the "Patriot" knows, was given! Whether the remainder of the population had any religion or not, the dissenter's argument was equally cut away from him. And this being the case, the Christian comfort which the "Patriot" finds is, that at all events, if all the persons whom it claimed are not dissenters, at least they are not churchmen, they have no belief, no hope, no God! If we did not see this spirit, should we believe its existence? But does not one thing strike the "Patriot"? The dissenters, it tells us, are all powerful, all rich, and they have the voluntary system. They can build chapels wherever they please. If there are so many godless and miserable beings, then, in the world, why do not the dissenters, by aid of their riches and power, and the voluntary system, provide them with teachers and places of worship? If the church is so feeble or so careless, why are they not proportionably active? If they are compelled to confess that they and the voluntary system cannot meet the case, will they say why they and their friends have always been so loud against any grants to the church from the nation, in order to her providing for these wretched men? Would they rather see their fellow-men perish eternally than see them churchmen? Here is a plain matter of fact. The dissenters say that there is an enormous number of men without religion, or teachers, or places of worship. Their acts shew that they cannot provide for their wants; the church has no internal resources (as is proved by the government statements of her revenues) for effecting the work, though she is doing all she can, and yet dissenters would combine with radicals, infidels, papists, to oppose any grant to the church for remedying this monstrous evil. They will not enter in themselves, and those that are entering in they would hinder. In the same article the "Patriot" is very strong against the church for its want of charity, and says that it would have repelled Watts and Doddridge from its pulpits, as much as any violent sectary of the present day. Certainly it would, and most rightly, and in perfect consistence with the highest respect for both. But, without debating that question now, (indeed it is too obvious to want debating,) if this is such a reproach to the church, and if there is so little difference between it and the sectaries, why, on so grave an occasion as that of thousands of unhappy men living without God in the world, do not the dissenters shew something of the spirit which they recommend? Why do not they petition parliament, and use that political influence which they boast of possessing, for the purpose of obtaining such supplies of money as would furnish plain churches and very moderately-paid clergymen, till there were none in the land who might not know God, if they would? The answer to this question is a very short one. It is true enough that dissenters do not see any material difference between the church and dissent-none which need prevent an interchange of pulpits: but dissent is more political than religious, and consequently nothing would induce dissenters, as a body, to forward measures which would strengthen the church, although they should be attended with such signal blessings to the vicious, the miserable, and ignorant, as that in question. THE SYMPATHIES OF LIBERALS IN ALL QUARTERS WITH RESPECT TO THE MINISTERS OF RELIGION. It is very well worth observation, that liberals of all countries have the same liberal feelings towards the men and things employed in the service of God; that is to say (if any one asks what liberal feelings are), they hate, and (as the said men and things are quite defenceless) think it manly and spirited to maltreat the men personally, and destroy the things. There were times and there were parties, the soldiers belonging to which would have thought helplessness a ground for granting protection, even where they felt no esteem. But those times are gone, and those parties are nearly gone too. The liberal soldiers of this day think helplessness the right ground for oppression. If the organ of liberalism, the "Times," does not misrepresent the liberals of the military order, let General Rodil and Colonel Caradoc, a Spanish and an English liberal, first appear. "The chief amusement that varied the fatigues of the campaign was curé or frat hunting. After the queen's troops had entered a village, one of these black gam |