the language into which Mr. Perry has expatiated in his needless defence of the Professor.

"If it be by such conduct that the Author of the letter to his lordship intends to shew himself a true lover of the holy Church,' let him be consistent, and for the future assume the name of Misotheologus."

We stand greatly in need of Mr. Perry's proficiency in Greek, to discover how Misotheologus can be a title applicable to "a true lover of the holy Church;" nor do we imagine that Philo theologus means more than a friend, or lover, of theology. Nearly all his remarks in refutation of the statements of Philotheologus are made in the same loose manner: whilst he blames him for being defective in proof, he himself makes assertions substantiated by no authority; and whilst he complains of his abuse, he recriminates with superior vigour.

We exceedingly doubt the supposition which is hazarded by our author, that there are any Masters of Arts incapable of performing their divinity exercises, at least any who are likely to be tried; for men who have regularly attended their college lectures, and exhibited their capability in the Senate-house, would hardly fear such an examination as is required for Divinity. And the M.A.s resident in the University, who are those that most frequently proceed to the degree of B.D., are commonly Fellows of Colleges, or possessors of distinguished posts, whose ability for passing this ordeal few would be disposed to question. Nor are we satisfied with his attempted refutation of the distinction between the regular and irregular B.D. because the previous exercises are not of equal difficulty, because the former is, by virtue of his M.A. degree, a member of the Senate, whereas the latter has no vote, nor can he attain it, without proceeding to his Doctor's degree. The author does not deny that the statute might originally mean, that those claiming its immunities "should for ten years wholly devote themselves to the study of theology, IN THE UNIVERSITY, yet he deems that it would be "ungracious and iniquitous" to compel them to it. The parallel which he institutes between the liberality extended to the other members, and the ten-year men, is defective: for, until the degree of B. A. be attained, regular residence is enjoined, and the exemption from residence does not occur until that period. Can we then compare the three terms of the ten-year man, or the exercises required from him, with the three years, and college discipline exacted from the rest of the body? The suggestion that flagellation of the "Cambridge graduates" might as rationally be enjoined, as the con

tinuance of residence to the ten-year men, is in perfect unison with many others which we have noticed in this pamphlet: every where the writer seems as ready to assail the regular Degree, as he charges Philotheologus with having been ready to assail that authorized by the statute of Elizabeth.

In the letter to the Duke of Gloucester, Mr. Perry charges the Bishop of London with exerting "an illegal and unwarrantable authority," in refusing ordination to ten-year men, and flatters himself "that measures have already been taken, or are in progress, for investigating his proceedings." The Bishop is supported, there can be no doubt, by the Ecclesias tical Law, in rejecting the claims of under-graduates: nor can a private statute granted to the University of Cambridge, oblige him to violate his own settled purpose, or the enactments relative to the church: and as we shall shew in the sequel, it remains to be proved, whether the statute in question origi nally had reference to laymen-which is a point that Mr. Perry has not satisfactorily demonstrated. Mr. P. does not content himself with stating his case, and noticing the Bishop's determination, but he launches forth into vituperations, which are perfectly unworthy of a good cause, and totally devoid of effect, when applied to the Bishop of London. Had he conducted himself with more moderation, he might have found many inclined to interest themselves in his case; but he has rendered it the subject of controversy and invective, and unwisely opposed himself to the acknowledged power of the Bishop, from whom he requires ordination.

With the laxity of discipline which Mr. Perry states to pre vail in some parts of his Lordship's diocese, and with his remarks and criticisms on his Lordship's Charge, we shall not interfere; the case of Mr. Perry, as a ten-year man, is that which is pro fessed to be the object of the pamphlet, and that to which we wish to confine ourselves. We are unable to ascertain the grounds on which an inquiry into the Bishop's conduct should be instituted. As the fact stands, the Bishop is supported by the laws, and had Mr. P. been ordained, it would have been by favour, not by right. Yet he says,

"Had I but a fortnight to live, I should consider that feeble rem nant of my life usefully employed in opposing the assumption of an arbitrary power, oppressive to individuals, derogatory from the dig nity and character of one of our Universities, injurious to the interests of the Church, and opposed to the constitution of this country."

Is a person who manifests such a temper a fit candidate for Holy Orders? Or is he a proper person to be entrusted by

the Bishop with the care of a parish, who descends to such aspersions, by implication, as the following?

"Far be it from me to doubt for a moment his lordship's sincere attachment to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, or his entire detestation of the impieties and corruptions of Popery. But, as the children of Israel, almost in the moment of their deliverance from bondage, murmured after the flesh-pots of Egypt, so do I believe it quite possible that even a Protestant prelate, however strong his conviction of the spiritual blessings conferred by the Reformation, if his character dispose him to a rigorous exercise, or an undue extension, of authority, may cast a longing lingering look behind,' to the priestly ascendancy of a less enlightened age, may yearn for the pos session of privileges more nearly approaching those enjoyed by the Romish clergy of old; and may regret, that the reformers, among other measures which they conceived calculated to benefit the interests of religion, should have thought it advisable to entrust a bishop of their church with a power less despotic and less dangerous than that wielded by his more fortunate predecessors."

This, with a sneering attack on the Bishop's parliamentary influence, and an appeal to the Duke of Gloucester, closes this strange and vindictive composition.

Having thus, as slightly as we consistently could, noticed some of the most prominent points in this production, we shall examine the question to which it refers at a greater length.

It has sometimes been assumed, that the studies pursued at the University have no connection with theological learning: that they are, however, excellent subsidiaries to it, is evident from the number of erudite divines, and sound biblical critics, which each University has produced. There can, indeed, be no better preparation for Divinity than the course of reading which is enjoined. The mental operations, which are induced by mathematics and logic, give a perspicuity of judgment, and an accuracy in investigation, which are rarely observed in those who are ignorant of them: they enable the student to separate matter of fact from fancy, and most commonly prevent his reason from being led astray by that fervid zeal, which is not accompanied by knowledge. Hence they are of fundamental advantage to the theologian. The collateral demonstrations, also, which classical literature affords to the truth of the Sacred Page, and the illustrations which the habits and languages of other nations yield to it, are necessarily omitted by him who neglects these studies; and as they are of the greatest importance to scriptural hermeneutics, it follows, that a divine, deficient in these, is deficient in one of the most important branches of his profession. If, indeed, after the Bachelor's degree, the

student destined for Holy Orders were required to study not only pastoral but critical theology, much good might result: yet, as after obtaining his degree, he may at any time present himself for ordination, this projected good would not depend upon the Universities, but on the bench of Bishops; and even were an enlarged course of theological reading demanded by their Lordships, it would be the province of the chaplains, not of the academical examiners, to submit it to the test. The Universities, however, by furnishing the foundation of liberal education and by affording lectures in divinity, which each candidate for Orders is expected to attend,* prepare the way for progress in theology; and this progress, in the higher branches of sacred learning, should be one subject of examination, before ordination is conferred.:

If, therefore, the regular graduate has many previous advan tages, the examination of the ten-year men, who have them not, should, it would seem, be proportionably severer. We wish to make no retrospective allusion, which Mr. Perry seems to fear; but we think that this would be a salutary provision for the future. No laboured proof is necessary to shew, that the Church must receive detriment from unqualified men. Admitting that the attainments in theology of some of the ten-year men are considerably higher than the specimens of classical acquirement which the divinity-school has occasionally exhibited, can those be accounted competent to interpret the text of the books which their clerical office requires them to explain, who have so very imperfect a knowledge of the original languages of Scripture? Against their pastoral character we have nothing to allege, for we know nothing of it; but we deny that the tests exacted from them are sufficient to prove them adequate expositors of the Scriptures. Is it not, therefore, an anomaly, that pursuing merely elementary studies, and bound only to three terms of residence, they should, on the completion of ten years standing, be advanced, as it were by a magic spell, to a Degree, for which others wait a longer period, are subjected to heavier expenses, and are forced to undergo more severe trials of learning? If it be objected, that the statute enjoins the studies to be merely theological, the works of the Fathers, and of the writers in the different departments of divinity, would supply sufficient materials for examination. As the Latin and Greek languages are indissolubly connected with

We know not on what plea the ten-year men are exempted from an attendance on divinity lectures, which can scarcely be of less importance to them than to the younger men, of whom it is rigidly required.

the knowledge of theology, it appears to us that a considerable acquaintance with both should be expected from them. The statute pre-supposes ten years to be devoted to the study of theology; and what proof has the University that the ten-year man has devoted himself to this pursuit for ten years? If the immunities of the statute be claimed, its requisitions should be fulfilled, ad literam *.

Some remedy, however, for the evils which must obviously ensue from this easy mode of attaining a superior Degree should certainly be devised: every year's calendar shows the increasing numbers of those who avail themselves of the privilege; and the numbers will continue to increase, until the exercises be rendered more difficult. According to our ideas of the statute, to which Mr. Perry does not assent, we conceive that it was intended that the person entering under it should be in Holy Orders: we do not imagine that it was ever intended to afford a claim to Ordination-otherwise few would have rejected the easy path for the difficult-but that, when persons had obtained orders without a degree, it was enacted, to enable them to procure one in their Faculty, without being subjected to the studies of their juniors: otherwise, it would be in direct violation of the ecclesiastical law, and oblige the Bishops to ordain every one admitted under it, provided he could pass the examination for Orders. The statute t itself implies this, although it does not express it; since the age required for entrance under it is 24 years, which is that of Priest's Orders; and about fifteen years since the University Calendar mentioned, that the individual admitted as a ten-year man must be in priest's orders-which proves, that it was formerly thus interpreted. But, if the Bishops persevere in the present laudable plan, which it is understood they have adopted, of ordaining none without a degree, the statute itself will soon become obsolete; and should any particular Bishop decline conformity with this wise regulation, the University may either counteract the evil by an additional examination, and by

*We were led into error, when speaking, in a former Article upon this subject, respecting the emolument derived from these Degrees, and have since understood, that the only remuneration for the Professor's time is two shillings. The reasoning founded on what we then believed to be the fact, falls of course to the ground.

The words of the Statute are: "Qui ad Academiam viginti quatuor annos nati accedunt, et se studio theologiæ totos tradunt, si omnes hujusmodi exercitationes coluerint, quæ ad Magistros Artium ad theologiam conversos spectant, POST DECENNIUM, ad Gradum Baccalaureatûs Theologiæ accedere poterunt, sine ullo in Artibus gradû suscepto, ita tamen, ut officiariis pro inferioribus Gradibus, more ab Academiâ recepto, satisfaciant," Сс

VOL. II. NO. IV.