any commotion of the elements." Is he aware that Dr. Chalmers, when last in London, and when his mind should have been altogether engrossed with the sacred question of "Sites," paid a visit to the Pantheist-Thomas Carlyle? But what will our cotemporary say to this one fact more? The whining Rev. at the close of Emerson's second lecture in Edinburgh, introduced himself to Emerson, and, as a minister, thanked him for his lecture !* Farther, we ask our cotemporary-now nicely fenced up in a corner-if Mr. Morell has not been eulogized by most of the Free Kirk organs-small self not excepted? What are Mr. Morell's religious views? When partially concealed even, in his late lectures in Edinburgh, were they much better than Emerson's? Had not Dr. Candlish privately to remonstrate with him about uttering them? Pray, our dear little friend of the Free Church Magazine, what think you of all this companying with sceptics? Is its pure little soul vexed? The hypocrite! It can strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. We should scorn to compare the literary merits of our Journal with those of the Free Kirk organ; we challenge, too, a comparison in point of sound theology.

and

But as we have just been mentioning Carlyle, we may be allowed to express our wonder that the Free Church Magazine did not, several months ago, condemn Merle for his enormous plagiarism from the literary property of the Pantheist. That plagiarism was most unprincipled. Carlyle publishes a book, which gives a certain view of Cromwell; and Merle, knowing that it would not circulate speedily in religious circlesgets up an expensive volume, containing the same view coloured a little by religion, and thus pockets a considerable sum of money, which ought to have been Carlyle's reward. Evangelical men can take advantage of Pantheists, it would seem! Merle becomes the disciple of Thomas Carlyle, to get an opportunity of robbing him.

But our contemporary says that we sneer at sacred things. Now, in an article of his own present number, entitled "A Morsel of Criti cism," we have stumbled upon some most disreputable levities. The article is upon the small Greek words ( de) which occur frequently in the New Testament, and which the writer (perpetrating a very small joke) says he will make "clear as noon-day, which, by the way, is nearly the pronunciation of the words themselves!" How gallant to the fair sex, and how profane to the Holy Bible the writer is, in starting! He says:

“And yet let neither the fair reader, nor her swart and venerable guardian suppose, that the article is to be a frivolous one. Slight is the subject,' as Virgil says, when about to treat of the bees, but the lucious honey-comb is rich and weighty too,' and we are not without the hope that, in handling aright those little particles, we may throw light on some passages of that sacred word which, to those who have their senses rightly exercised, is sweeter than honey and the honey comb."

The writer seems to have been apprehensive lest the "swart and venerable guardian" of the young lady might forbid the "honey." What

* He is a leading Free Kirk Clergyman in Edinburgh, and we are ready to publish his

naine,

a vigilant guardian he must be, if he keep his gentle ward from the sight of u de or noon-day! But we ask if such a way of carrying on an exegesis of the Bible was ever exemplified in the world or in the Church before?

But wherein consisted our profanity? Merle D'Aubigné, wishing to be thought a great man, and having heard that all great men had suffered much from sceptical moods of mind, must represent himself as having been once in torture from doubts. He describes his sleepless nights in bed. There was no grand and dark problem of the universe, fascinating his thoughts into an intensely painful study. He was only at a loss how to understand and reconcile some Scripture texts, which, after all, were "clear as vu de," (as the buffoon of the Free Church Magazine would say.) Merle's agony must have been all fudge, and we ventured on an explanation from natural history, a much more probable source, in this case, than either natural or revealed theology. And this is our offence.

the Esta

Concerning the vile calumnies which the writer casts upon blished Clergy, we need say nothing. To quote is to refute them, and here is one sentence: "In reality, they have not, and never had, as a body, any regard for religion and religious men; and when they have an end to accomplish, they have always been most unscrupulous as to means.” This charitable judgment, of course, proves Free Churchmen to be very exalted Christians. We grant, that to feed D'Aubigné did not demonstrate that the Established Clergy had much "regard for religion and religious men;" yet we cannot see how jesting at Merle demonstrates them to be infidels.

One word more about ourselves. Concerning the origin of this Journal, our contemporary indulges in bold and reckless falsehoods. Though it has been liberally supported by the Church of Scotland, the publisher, Mr. Macphail, alone was responsible for "setting it up," and for securing a band of contributors. The gross slanders against a certain smart scribe," were worthy of the Bacchanalian singer of the Free Kirk Israel, who has more than once writhed and smarted under a well-merited castigation. It so happens, however, that the powerful writer who, perhaps, is referred to, entertains and has published views on Emerson, as a literary man, altogether different from, nay, quite opposite to, those which " Macphail," has expressed; and farther, that he was not the author of any of the several papers to which our contemporary (who has cause to hate and fear the "certain smart scribe") is pleased to refer. In conclusion, it is not our "blackening and vilifying" the Free Church, that makes this Journal so obnoxious, but it is our honest and unsparing criticism of the men and things connected with that self-righteous body. And we still may tell our opponents, that whilst our chief vocation is to promote the progress of literature and theology, we shall continue occasionally to salute the Pharisees. Really we were never so bad as to "dance like New Zealand savages upon the grave of Mr. Innes of Canobie." Without disturbing that grave which, we hope, holds a good man, we only removed the LYING epitaph which proclaimed him a martyr.

OUR PARISH SCHOOLS.

MR. EDITOR,

You who dwell in the very midst of the stir and bustle of civil and ecclesiastical politics, and probably, in close contact with individuals, who have great influence in both, must be better acquainted with the doings and schemes of parties than an obscure minister of a country parish; you will therefore be able to correct me, if I be in error, when I express my opinion, that an attack is meditated upon the present constitution of our parish schools. There are various circumstances which lead to this opinion. The Circular of the Messrs. Chambers has already been handled and exposed in your excellent Magazine. And, whatever the Messrs. Chambers may be as to their religious opinions, we must give them their due, and it would not only be wilful blindness to deny that they have attained a high position in the estimation of Scotland, and possess a great influence over the minds of her people, but it would also be unjust not to allow that they have obtained that position and influence by fair and legitimate means. Whatever may be their merit as original writers, they have certainly the merit of originating, and by laborious exertions of carrying on a system of cheap publication, which has laid their country under deep obligation, and has no doubt been a blessing to Scotland, and to Britain, and to the world. It was, therefore, with no inconsiderable degree of regret, not unmingled with alarm, that many ministers of the Church of Scotland heard of the attack made upon the Parish Schools by the Messrs. Chambers. We could not avoid seeing what a powerful auxiliary the enemies of our establishment had obtained, and how ready they would be, on this new accession to their strength, to join in the war-cry, and rush to the assault. That they are now mustering their forces, and only want an opportunity to begin, time will show; and then we shall have the Circular paraded at public meetings, and quoted, and requoted, and commented on, and the wisdom and liberality of the Messrs. Chambers will be sounded throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, and even the walls of the House of Commons will replicate the knell of these antiquated and effete things the Parish Schools. But, notwithstanding all the active hostility which we anticipate, we cannot allow ourselves for a moment to suppose, that the attempts made to sever the Parish Schools from the Church of Scotland, will be otherwise than vain and useless. We cannot think that that noble system which has been for so many years the glory and boast of Scotland, which has taught our peasantry to read their Bibles, and to write, "accomplishments still comparatively rare among the peasantry of England"-which, in conjunction with our admirable standard of doctrine, our catechisms, and confessions, has tended greatly to mould the national character, and to raise it to the high position it has attained—we cannot think that this noble system will be overturned by the agitated breath and clamour of a sect. We have the utmost confidence in the present head of her Majesty's Government,-a confidence which recent transactions have confirmed and strengthened, that he will never yield to a pressure from without, however strong, unless he know that that pressure is just and well grounded, nor can we think that the Houses of Parliament have been

so thoroughly deprived of the conservative principle, as to desire the destruction of any establishment, unless it can be proved that the change will be a reform. Lord John Russell is an honest man, a man of decision, and will regard the interests of the quiet aud unobtrusive, as well as the noise of the clamorous. But should any future minister of the crown, or any future British Parliament, propose to abolish our parochial system of instruction, it is but fair, and we demand it as a right, that the system which may be proposed to supply its place shall first be tested by an application to England, where they have no national system of education; if it succeed there, and if it succeed there better than our present system has succeeded in Scotland, if it teach the peasantry of England more than the Parish Schools have taught the peasantry of Scotland, then, but not till then, let it be grafted on the stump of our parochial system.

But Sir, although it be our settled conviction that no attack upon our Parish Schools will in the meantime prove otherwise than unsuccessful, yet it may not perhaps be altogether unnecessary to endeavour to meet some of the objections which are generally urged against the present system, and to state the reason why the parish schools ought not to be placed on a different footing from that on which they now stand.

The miserable attempt insinuatingly made by the Messrs. Chambers to traduce the character and abilities of the Parish Schoolmasters, is altogether unworthy of notice, as it is altogether unworthy of them. It is a poor argument, and argues only a poor cause, to take a single case and to argue from it the general character of a body of men, to

Reproach a people for his single fall,

And cast his filthy garment at them all.

If it did not excite feelings of indignation against those who could employ such an unworthy artifice, it would be truly ludicrous, reminding us of the memoranda of Jeremy Cockloft, the younger," Vernon tavern, fine place to sleep in; Vernon slew-eyed, N. B., all the people of Brunswick of course squint." Let us see the premises and conclusion. "Whether from the want of legal powers in superiors, want of funds to allow of retiring salaries, or general want of energy, many schools are afflicted with teachers incompetent from age or infirmities to execute their duties in a suitable manner. The removal of a schoolmaster from physical or moral imperfections is a rare event." This is the conclusion, and on what accumulation of facts is this broad conclusion founded; here we have the premises. "I happen to know of a case in which a teacher who frequently presented the spectacle of a drunkard to his pupils, lived unchallenged, and died in his vocation." One case, and that too, if the phraseology be correct, not from personal knowledge, but from hearsay. Do the Messrs. Chambers really mean to say, that, because they have known, or known of the case referred to, drunkenness is a common vice among the parochial teachers of Scotland? Do they mean to insinuate, that the Church Courts have no power, or if they have the power have no energy to correct these irregularities, and that therefore they must be, or at any rate, are in all cases overlooked? And farther, do they wish to have it believed that the number of teachers who are "incompetent from age and infirmities to execute their duties in a suitable manner, is greater than a very small fraction of the whole, and that the teachers in these antiquated and effete things," are upon the whole unqualified for the discharge of the duties of their office. Every Scotchman knows, and no one knows better than the Messrs. Chambers, that these charges, if they are meant to be insinuated, are false and unfounded. It is well known, that, as a body, the schoolmasters of Scotland will stand comparison, and will benefit by the comparison, with any

similar body in the world, whether in point of moral worth and weight, or of intellectual and official abilities. That no provision exists for the retirement of those, who, after a useful and laborious life, have by age or infirmities become unable to perform their duties with their former efficiency -is much to be regretted, but surely this may be remedied without abolishing an institution, whose usefulness has been proved by the experience of so many years. But passing away from this charge, let us advert to the great and standing objection which is urged against our parish schools, viz., what is called their sectarian character. Now this word sectarian has one of two meanings, according to the mind of the party by whom it is used; it signifies either religious, or pertaining to a certain sect. Both parties who use it join in the same cry of sectarianism; and, so far as the destruction of the present system is concerned, they employ it for the same end; but should they ever succeed in their object and come to a mutual explanation of what they meant, they will find themselves in direct antagonism, the one to the other; they may hunt for a time in the same pack, but should they succeed in pulling down the game, they will turn upon and tear each other. The futility of the expectations of the Messrs. Chambers, and of such as they, that they will obtain the assistance of Dissenters in depriving the Parish Schools of their sectarian, according to them, i. e., their religious character, has been well and ably exposed in an article on National Education in your Number for November; and therefore nothing more requires to be said on that head. Let us examine the other charge conveyed by the word sectarian, that the Parish Schools, because they belong to a sect, must therefore teach and disseminate the peculiar doctrines of that sect and of no other; that therefore they are shut against the admission of all who may conscientiously differ in religious opinion from that sect; and that, therefore, their connection with that sect ought in justice to be broken, for this is in truth the substance of the accusation conveyed in the cry of sectarianism. Now Sir, it will be observed that in education there are three classes, the taught, the teachers, and the superintendents of education. Exclusive education is, when the first of these classes is selected from a certain sect, and education confined to members of that sect to the exclusion of all who, from conscientious convictions, cannot conform to the peculiar doctrines or tenets of that sect. Of course this supposes that the other two classes are confined to the same sect. This is strictly sectarian education, for not only are certain tests applied to candidates for admission to the benefits of education, but it also naturally results from this, that the distinctive secularities, which form the substance of these tests, are sedulously inculcated in the seminaries referred to. The English Universities afford an example of this system of education, and are distinctly open to the charge of sectarianism. In our parochial system of education, again, the two last classes are confined to members of the Church of Scotland, and it is this which has given rise to the present clamour against its sectarian character. But, Sir, we insist that the evil, which is implied in that clamour, shall be clearly specified; we cannot allow ourselves to suppose that it arises merely from an envious feeling towards the Established Church, because of the possession of certain privileges, or from a selfish desire to participate in rights which belong to others. The clamour must surely arise, either from the fact that sectarian principles, the distinctive principles of the Established Church of Scotland, are inculcated in our schools, principles which are obnoxious to the consciences of many, who would otherwise avail themselves of the benefits conferred by these schools; or, 2nd, that the Church of Scotland cannot supply from its members, efficient teachers; or 3d, that the super