Church, Infant, 507; Dissenters, 970; giving a seeming majority to the Dissenters of 463.

Church, Sunday, 890; Dissenters, Sunday, 3030; giving a seeming majority to the Dissenters of 2140.

Total Church, 6471; Dissenters, 8316; leaving a seeming majority to what are called Dissenters, of 1845. Even this seeming majority, however, will shortly be diminished by 1500, (the additional accommodation provided by the church,) and will, therefore, be reduced to 345. But let us examine how this seeming majority is made up. In the first place, the church day and Sunday schools are now 5581, and soon will be 7081. Those of the so called dissenters, including Wesleyans, are only 5286. The church, therefore, now has a majority of 295, and in a few months will have a majority of 1795, in day and Sunday scholars, and the minority will be in Sunday schools alone. And of what is this seemingly dissenting majority composed? It is not composed of dissenters at all; for, of the day and Sunday dissenting schools, amounting to 5286, including infants, 1520 are Wesleyan Methodists, who repudiate the name of dissenters, all the Wesleyan ministers but one having signed the church declaration. The day and Sunday dissenters, then, are only 3766, including infants; and of these there are 1200 in the so called Roman catholic schools, which admit all sects, and are supported by all denominations,-protestants, churchmen, and all, subscribing largely, and going to catholic balls for their benefit. Again, there are 500 miscellaneous children in the Duncanstreet school, supported chiefly by Quakers; 200 in the Scotch secession church school; 200 in the Stanhope-street school, and so on. It is, therefore, a very groundless assertion that dissenters educate even the children that are claimed for them. The children are not bonâ fide dissenters, and very many of the subscribers are churchmen. Again, of the Sunday scholars, with their deficient calculation, 1060 are Wesleyan Methodists, 830 mixed Methodists, and 140 Christian Israelites! using our catechism; so that the number of bonâ fide Sunday school dissenters is reduced to about 1000; viz. 640 independents, and 360 baptists. This is the sum total of the majority of dissenting Sunday scholars over the church.

And now, Sir, what is the conclusion that our political enemies draw from these untenable premises? is it that dissenters out-number us in scholars? Look to figures: our day and Sunday scholars are now 5581, and soon will be 7081. Their's, including the Wesleyan Methodists, who are not dissenters, only amount to 5286; and, excluding the Wesleyan Methodists, only amount to 3766; so that, in day and Sunday scholars, we now have a majority of 1815, and shall have a majority of 3315 in a very few months. Their Sunday scholars, to be sure, seemingly amount to 3030, and ours only to 890; giving them a nominal majority of 2140; but of this, 1060 are Wesleyan Methodists, 830 mixed Methodists, a great proportion being Welch, and 140 Christian Israelites; leaving but 1000 bonâ fide dissenting Sunday scholars to our 890, i. e. a majority of 110; and this I do not think is much to our disadvantage, when we consider how very ineffective a mere Sunday school education is. Again, is it meant to infer that the dissenters outdo us in liberality? I don't wish to cast the slightest imputation upon their liberality, particularly that of the Quakers; but, before we admit this, we must ascertain who the persons are that support the dissenting schools. Look at the list of subscribers, and you will see the names of some of the wealthiest churchmen in the town, as I will admit you see the names of first-rate dissenters to some of the church schools. The dissenting schools not only admit all denominations, but are supported by all denominations. We go, it is true, upon the intolerant principle of requiring our children to go to church, on the cautious supposition that if we don't require this they will go nowhere at all, and for this, amidst the vice and profligacy of a populous town, I cannot think we are to blame. For this leads me to a final but very important consideration as to what sort of an education is it, after all, that the children get in the schools. Because it is not education

per se that is valuable, but a religious education,—an education that will not fill their heads with empty notions and the oppositions of science, falsely so called, but make them good subjects and good Christians, and teach them not to join trades' unions, and break the heads of those who will not, but to obey the laws, and submit to ordinances, to fear God and honour the king, to do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with their God. This we do; and I do not mean to say that the dissenters do not. The Liverpool dissenters are very liberal and very friendly to the church: they subscribe to our schools, and cheerfully pay our clergy, and deserve and have our respect and friendship. I institute no invidious comparisons; I give every man credit for good actions, and good intentions, whatever his creed may be; I only write for truth's sake, and not for strife or envy. I repeat again that I wish no other provocation but that which shall provoke to love and good works. The dissenters and churchmen in this town have always walked together as friends, and I hope to God that no instigation of political incendiaries will ever avail to disturb their friendship. Trusting that the foregoing statements, though necessarily inaccurate with regard to some few of the minor computations, (it being very difficult to avoid errors, owing sometimes to a wilful exaggeration in the returns,) will be found correct in the main, and afford a sufficiently accurate comparison of the numbers calculated in the church and dissenting schools. I remain your very faithful servant, CLERICUS.

Liverpool, May 9, 1834.

THE LAY DECLARATION. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, Ox Tuesday a numerous deputation of gentlemen from the central Committee for the promotion and circulation of a declaration of the laity of the church of England, accompanied by Colonel Clitherow, T. G. Bucknall Estcourt, Esq., M.P. for the University of Oxford, H. Joshua King, Esq., Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, the Chairman, and R. W. S. Lutwidge, Esq., and John Pearson, Esq., Honorary Secretaries of the Committee, waited upon his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury at his Palace, at Lambeth, with an address requesting permission to deposit in his Grace's hands the original signatures to the declaration. Colonel Clitherow, after briefly stating the facts connected with the declaration, to which the signatures of upwards of 230,000 laymen of mature age had been affixed, informed his Grace that an address, embodying the declaration, had already been laid at the foot of the throne, of which he begged to present him with a copy. Colonel Clitherow, then, after a few preliminary observations, read the address, which was to the following effect :

"TO THE MOST REV. WILLIAM, BY DIVINE PROVIDENCE, LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN.

"We, the undersigned, having been graciously permitted to lay at the foot of the throne our expression of the devoted attachment of the laity of the church of England to her pure faith and worship, and her apostolic form of government, confirmed by the signatures of upwards of 230,000 male persons of mature age, are desirous to approach your Grace with our congratulations on this unparalleled demonstration of affection to the national church, affording, as it does, the strongest evidence that the laity of the church of England feel in her maintenance an interest no less real and no less direct than her immediate ministers.

"In craving permission of your Grace to deposit the proofs of this feeling among the archives of Lambeth, to be there preserved with the other evidence of attachment to the church on the part of the clergy and laity already in your Grace's hands, we gladly avail ourselves of the present occasion to assure your Grace of our hearty concurrence in those sentiments of veneration and VOL. VI.-July, 1834.

M

affection for your Grace's person and office, which have emanated from so many quarters, and which, we feel assured, are entertained by every friend of the national church.

"That your Grace may long be preserved, by the blessing of Divine Providence, to that church of which you are so distinguished a support and ornament, and may enjoy every earthly happiness, is the fervent prayer of your Grace's dutiful servants." (Here follow the signatures.)

To this address his Grace was pleased to return the following answer :"Gentlemen,—I receive your assurance of respect and kindness towards me, and of veneration for the office in which it hath pleased the Almighty to place me, with more than ordinary satisfaction; and I request you to accept my grateful acknowledgments of your zeal in the cause of the established church at a time when, in England and Ireland, and in all our colonial possessions, it stands so much in need of defence against the machinations of enemies avowedly intent on its destruction.

Amidst the perils which are multiplying around us, the clergy will derive the greatest encouragment to persevering exertion from these public professions of your devoted adherence to the church, and your implied approbation of the character and conduct of its ministers. While such are the sentiments of the wisest and best among our fellow-countrymen, we may look forward with hope, and, whatever may be the event of the hostility with which we are threatened, we shall find consolation in their sympathy, and in the consciousness of not being altogether unworthy of it.

"With great pleasure I take on me the custody of these important documents. They will be deposited among the archives of Lambeth, and will there be preserved as authentic memorials of your filial reverence for the national church, your attachment to her polity, her faith, and her formularies, and your deep sense of the blessings which, through the mercy of God, in our Lord Jesus Christ, are diffused, by her agency, through the whole of our social system."

LADYE CHAPEL, SOUTHWARK.

June 21.-The Lord Bishop of Winchester presided at a meeting of the friends and subscribers to the restoration of the Ladye Chapel, held in the venerable and beautiful structure which had been rescued from destruction. The Report of the committee was brought up, and read to the meeting. It detailed the proceedings attendant on the struggle for the preservation of the chapel; the successful result of the proceedings in Parliament; and the excellent restoration which had been effected by the skill and talents of G. Gwilt, Esq., F.S.A.

It was a matter of deep regret to hear that the committee have incurred a very heavy amount of expense beyond the sum subscribed by the public, liberal as the amount of the subscriptions-viz. 26341. 28., was,-the extraordinary expenses attending the contest in Parliament, and with a party in the parish, occasioned an increase of 11267. 12s. 9d. beyond the above amount. The expense of restoring the chapel, 25007., it appeared, had been paid by the committee; and an earnest appeal was made to the public to come forward liberally, and enable the committee fully to discharge its engagements.

It appeared from the speeches delivered that a gentleman, who stood forward with so much resolution and zeal in the cause of restoration, has advanced the necessary supplies to prevent the works of restoration from standing still. Such an example of individual disinterestedness is deserving the most sincere praise. It is pleasant to add that more than 370l. was subscribed at the meeting.

The Lord Bishop was supported by Lord Arden, the Lord Lieutenant of the county; and it was highly satisfactory to see two individuals of such exalted rank in the nation warmly supporting the associations which the pre

servation of a building like the present must ever give rise to. Several Members of Parliament and other distinguished individuals, as well laity as clergy, were present.*

A STATEMENT RESPECTING THE LECTURES AT PRESENT GIVEN ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, IN TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

THE turn, which the controversy now so unfortunately agitating us has taken, compels me, after much reluctance, to come forward, in order to meet the statements which have been made on the subject of the Lectures given in books of the New Testament.

I feel imperatively called upon. For the last year I have been entrusted by my college with the undivided charge of giving these Lectures; the burden therefore of whatever blame may attach to their present state falls exclusively upon me. It may readily be supposed that the representations which have gone forth, and those too from my own college, have afforded me pain. it is not to my purpose to add another remark on this. I shall lose no time in proceeding to a detail of facts.

But

The subjects of the Lectures have been, The Diatesseron, and the Acts of Apostles. They have occupied between them all the period assigned to Lecturing from October last until the approach of the Annual Examination in this month. The plan upon which I have gone has been the following:

I have all along given all the information which I thought had reference to the text, not only in a Philological (under which term I include Antiquarian, Chronological, and Geographical), but also Doctrinal point of view; indeed I am at a loss to conceive how a Lecturer can proceed three leaves deep, either into a Gospel or into the Acts, without feeling himself called upon to give at least some intimation of the doctrines of the Divinity of our Lord and of the Personality of the Holy Ghost.

I have never passed slightly over a passage because it was philologically barren, and paid no regard to what doctrine may be involved in it, as, according to the representatious which have been given, I should have done. On the contrary, many chapters, scarcely affording any opportunity for philological remark, have been subjected to careful canvass, verse by verse, because some important doctrine was involved in them, as John iii., or thought by some to be involved in them, as John vi,; to say nothing of the importance of every verse in itself. I hope that I need not add after this, that such passages as Matt. xvi. 18, &c., were not gone through without a remark of what has been built upon them.

Nor have I so much as omitted to deliver my opinion upon such moral cases as have been variously viewed by various commentators and authors; such as the desertion of Mark, the conduct of Gallio, the difference between Paul and Barnabas. In short, my endeavour throughout has been to bring to bear upon the text all the information of every kind which my knowledge and time for preparation could supply.

Had the Lectures been carried no further than this, they would still have been of a totally different character from that which has been represented.

It is most earnestly to be hoped that all persons who have a feeling for the preservation of interesting works of art-all who wish to rescue the country from the shame of allowing the most beautiful specimens of our early architecture to go to decay for want of money to repair them-all who think barbarism a reproach, and meanness a disgrace to a nation-all, again, who are opposed to the low and radical feeling which induced a large body of persons to wish for the destruction of the Ladye Chapel, because it was one ornamental to the national church, will stand forward in imitation of the Bishop and Lord Arden to assist the active and energetic committee, and make up the deficiency.-ED.

But in addition to this examination of the text, I have put together and deli vered formal dissertations, of which the following is an accurate list. Philology will hardly be said to be supreme here.

1. Introductory, on the Canon of New Testament History of the Books and Authors which are the subject of Lectures. History of Hellenistic Greek. An account of Commentaries and Harmonies. MSS, VSS, EDD. Recommendation of Books.

2. On the Logos.

3. On the Temptation.

4. On the Lamb of God.'

5. On the Son of God,' 'Son of Man,' Sons of God'

6. On Justification and Sanctification.

XII. XIII.

Reference made to our Articles XI.

7. On Election. Reference made to Article XVII.

8. On Baptism.

9. On Regeneration.

10. On Confirmation.

11. On the Eucharist.

12. On our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, as to its proper place in the

Gospel scheme.

13. On the Nature and Application of Prophecy.

14. On Miracles.

15. On the Gift of Healing, with an explanation of James v. 13, &c.

16. On the Demoniacs of the New Testament.

17. On the Gift of Tongues.

18. On the Nature of the New Testament as not containing a Code like the Old Testament, and yet containing all Doctrine necessary to Salvation. 19. On the Lord's Day.

20. On Church Government.

These were delivered, according as the most striking texts, to which they could be referred (and which indeed gave rise to them) presented themselves in the course of reading the subjects. Of course the greater number of them were appended to the Lectures on the Acts.

This course just ended has been, in this respect of dissertation, a great enlargement of that of the preceding year, which was also an enlargement of its predecessor. As my leisure, arising from greater experience in the other subjects of Lectures, increased, I was enabled to employ more time in such studies and pursuits as have an intimate connexion with these Lectures. Their range has consequently been extended every year. The greater degree in which it has widened

As it has been represented that Mr. Evans's present course is something new since last year, particular attention is requested to these two sentences in italics. Mr. Thirlwall speaks in his second pamphlet of one course of Lectures of this kind lasting only a fortnight. This surely must have been accidental. In the writer's time, about 20 years ago, the Lectures on St. Luke alone occupied nearly a whole And he has the authority of a very distinguished scholar and divine, who was at Trinity from 25 to 30 years ago, for saying that he now feels constant reason to be thankful for the excellent Lectures of this kind then delivered by Mr. Young.

term.

It ought, indeed, especially to be explained, that the great difference between Mr. Evans's present and former Lectures is his embodying his remarks in the form of Dissertations. Nothing can be more probable or natural than that Professor Sedgwick, who has other occupations, is much absent from Cambridge, and has no connexion with the Tuition, might not have heard of this. It is much to be regretted that he should not have inquired what has been the nature and complexion of Mr. E.'s Lectures for very many years. It will give him pain to know, but it must be stated, that his hasty statement has done his own university very great injury, and lowered it extremely in the minds of a large body of most valuable persons, who know nothing of Cambridge but what they learn from him, whom they could not reasonably suspect of extreme inaccuracy.