Mr. Arthur James Johnes, too, writes two letters to the Editor of the Morning Chronicle, asserting that these petitions (which, it would appear, originated with him) have received no answer. If Mr. Johnes is determined perpetually to obtrude himself before the public, he must take the consequences. They will not be very serviceable to his character.

Let us see what Mr. Johnes says. In the first edition of his book he stated that Christ Church, Oxford, derived 4000l. a year from the tithes of a particular parish in Wales. The fact is, that the tithes produce only 2500l. a year; of this, Christ Church receives only 500l. Mr. Johnes found out his error, and corrected, in the second edition, 4000l. into 2500l. The Bishop of St. Asaph, in the House of Lords, having stated that Mr. J. represented the value as 4000l. (relying on a statement sent to him by a Welsh clergyman), Mr. Johnes writes a most insiduous insinuating letter to the newspaper, accusing the Bishop of disingenuousness for saying that he represented these tithes as worth 40007., when in three places he spoke of them as only 25007. But Mr. Johnes forgets altogether to notice the small fact, that he did represent them as worth 4000l. in his first edition. Will this be serviceable to Mr. Johnes's character? He forgets, too, the other small fact, that Christ Church receives only 500l. from them. Will this be serviceable to Mr. Johnes's character? Mr. Johnes dwells on the dreadful evils of the clergy not knowing Welsh. The Bishop of Bangor says, there is not one in his diocese; the Bishop of St. Asaph says, that he has never given preferment to a single Englishman. And Mr. Johnes then alleges two cases where, if his statement be true, the clergy do not know Welsh So on two cases, out of two dioceses, these serious allegations are built. Will this be serviceable to Mr. Johnes's character?

He goes over again the case of Archdeacon Jones, which was discussed in this Magazine. Did any reader think the statements there made (see vol. ii. pp. 201 and 480) serviceable to Mr. Johnes's character ?

There is another small device of Mr. Johnes's which deserves notice. The reader is of course aware that half the livings in England are vicarages, or perpetual curacies, the great tithes going either to laymen, corporations, or clerical bodies, sole or corporate. Now, wherever they belong to the clergy, though the clerical benefice is a vicarage, or a perpetual curacy, and the vicar is resident, and the rector could not interfere by law, Mr. Johnes is pleased constantly to represent the rector as a delinquent, absentee, and non-resident, and wholly to overlook the small fact that the clerical incumbent, established by law, is resident. Will this be serviceable to Mr. Johnes's character? For example--Llanvair, in Denbighshire, belongs to a clerical corporation, and is a perpetual curacy. Mr. Johnes represents this as one of the livings "in the hands of persons who are absentees" from the Principality. Yet he knew the fact that the curate was a perpetual curate, i. e., that the curate was the incumbent, as he mentions his being partly paid out of Queen Anne's Bounty. Is this creditable to Mr. Johnes's character? Heullan is annexed to the deanery of St. Asaph, yet the Dean is represented as one of the absentees. Mr. Johnes's statements of value of Heullan, &c., are wholly omitted, for the reader by turning to the March number of this Magazine, will find two clergymen there stating that he has doubled their incomes, besides giving one of them two livings, neither of which he has. Is this creditable to Mr. Johnes's character?

Next, from a very valuable letter in the English Chronicle of April 6th, it appears that in a list of nineteen parishes from Mr. Johnes's essay, on which he states the incumbent to be non-resident, eleven, to the writer's certain knowledge, are constantly resident, and he is nearly certain that the rest are so. The fact is, that these parishes are of the description above, and that Mr. Johnes's small device was applicable to them. That, no doubt, is also peculiarly creditable to Mr. Johnes's character.

The letter then notices a list of five parishes of which the Dean of St. Asaph

would appear to be the incumbent. But the fact is, that it is with these as with those noticed above; part of the great tithes belong to the Deanery, and in each case, the clergyman, having the cure of souls by law, resides. The Dean's brother is represented as having four parishes; the fact being, that he resides on one, and that of the other three, two are sinecure rectories, where the vicar resides, and the third has no cure of souls. "It may be worth,” says the letter-writer," half as much as Mr. Johnes makes it, which is a pretty fair allowance for all his statements in this respect." All this, no doubt, Mr. Johnes will hereafter find eminently serviceable to his character, and will induce persons to listen to all he may say with peculiar confidence, and without the least misgiving.

THE REGISTRATION BILL.

MR. WILKS is bringing in a bill for a general Registration. If this is properly managed, there can be no objection to it. Let each body of Christians in a county send in to the office of the Clerk of the Peace, an account of the births, &c., among themselves, and the whole would be done. But if Mr. Wilks intends to make the clergy register baptisms and burials not taking place in their own communion, such abominable tyranny ought to be resisted at once. What would Mr. Wilks say of an Act exonerating clergy from keeping the registers of their own people, and compelling Dissenting ministers to do this work for them? The registers kept by the clergy, are registers of their own acts as ministers of religion, and are not kept by them as civil officers, in which capacity they are not known to the state. The motion was seconded by Mr. K. Tynte, who knowing, to his great comfort, that Mr. Bickham Escott is not in the house, thought he might venture to raise his voice and flatter the Dissenters. He remembered what Mr. Escott had done to him, too keenly, however, to venture again to lift his heel against the church, and so let him pass. There are persons more malignant than poor Mr. Tynte, who are allowed to pass also, simply from their being as insignificant. For example, there was one debate in which Mr. Curteis, the member for Sussex, and Sir C. Blunt, one of the radical members for Lewes, said whatever seemed good to them against the church, because they knew full well that there was no one to defend the clergy. Mr. Curteis will probably not venture a second time on abusing the clergy, when a clergyman is present, as, in an evil hour for himself, he did at Brighton. Mr. Curteis and Sir C. Blunt's sayings and doings are not of the slightest importance to any man, woman, or thing; but in what a defenceless state must the church be in the House of Commons when such persons dare to attack it!

CONGREGATIONAL MAGAZINE.

THE British Magazine has been guilty of one piece of folly lately; viz. entering into a controversy with the Congregational Magazine, in the wise expectation that it would be conducted in the language and manner common among gentlemen. What might have been foreseen, has happened; viz., that in the very 2nd paper, all pretence to decency has been abandoned, and the writer in the Congregational Magazine calls his opponent an hypocrite, in so many words, and charges him with cant, shuffling, &c. &c. This method of controversy ensures the victory to him who uses it, if driving an opponent off the field is victory; and this triumph shall be conceded to the Congregational Magazine.

After the few words that follow, it shall be allowed to call names and revile, and to state every thing in its own way, without question. It requires no patience to bear all the revilings quite unmoved, and no philosophy to despise the triumph.

Extracts, however, illustrative of its modesty and charity, and contradictions of any falsehoods which may adorn its pages, may be given, but no further attempt at controversy shall be made with a publication which forgets common decency of language. It may therefore sing its pean of victory as soon as it pleases, and announce the discomfiture of the British Magazine to its brother journals, who will be just as well pleased as by a victory obtained by the power of argument.

How far the victory has been so obtained may be learned from the following enumeration.

Triumph One of the Congregational Magazine.

The writer in the Congregational Magazine having said that it would not refuse to enter the lists of personal controversy, and being taxed with this expression, says, that personal is an ambiguous word, and that personal controversy does not mean personal attacks, but controversy carried on by reply and rejoinder!

Triumph Two of the Congregational Magazine.

The Congregational Magazine having said, that dissenting chapels, though inferior in architectural beauty to our churches, are always superior to them in the great purposes for which churches and chapels exist, is extremely angry at being supposed to mean that every chapel is superior to every church. What does it mean?

Triumph Three of the Congregational Magazine.

The Congregational Magazine states, that the same privileges which are assumed by church writers in argument, are denied to dissenters, and that especially the British Magazine having complained of the attacks, in dissenting journals, on clergy whose names are not given, does the same thing itself.

No name will be given to the mode by which this triumph is obtained. The simple fact is this. The complaint made by the British Magazine was this-that attempts are made every day in the dissenting journals to injure the church, by bringing charges against the private characters of clergy, whose names these journals do not dare to give. And what like this has ever been done by the British Magazine, or any other church journal? Nothing whatever! The passage referred to in the British Magazine was merely an illustration of the notorious fact, that in the dissenting interest the ministers are constantly removed at the caprice of the congregation, and four instances, in one neighbourhood, were alluded to, the names being suppressed for fear of giving pain. Thus the Congregational Magazine justifies the dissenting journals for vilifying the clergy, without giving names, by shewing that the British Magazine has done something entirely different. Was there any attack on private character, or any attempt to vilify the whole body of dissenting ministers like those in the dissenting journals, which represent the whole of the clergy as mere fox-hunters and dancers, because a rev. gentleman, not a hundred miles from was out hunting with the hounds on such a day? Perhaps the writer in the Congregational Magazine may not see the difference of the cases. He certainly will not choose to see them, but will call this shuffling. Be it so. If it were quite clear that he did not see how the matter was, it might be added that if, to shew his notions of the church patronage, he were to state that it brought too many men of fortune into the church, and that in one neighbourhood four sons of noblemen, or men of large fortune, had lately taken preferment, no complaints of slander or reviling* would have been brought.

They who have any curiosity to ascertain the temper and taste of the dissenting newspapers, should read a letter about bishops' incomes, in the Christian Advocate of April 1, signed Peter Pendleton. The novelty of the argument, the elegance of the style, and the Christian tone of the article will charm them equally. It is by such things that those base papers strive to keep up hatred to the church.

Triumph Four of the Congregational Magazine.

The great triumph of all is over the shameful shuffling of the British Magazine, as to the appeal to authorities for church and dissenting practises. It was a question, whether the dissenting authorities appealed to in this Magazine were fair authorities to appeal to, and whether the church authorities appealed to by dissenters were fair authorities to appeal to. The Congregational proposed, what is, perhaps, a tolerably fair test, viz., a general acceptance of these authorities by the respective bodies to which they belonged. This test was accepted, and the British Magazine stated, in arguing on it, that the works of Messrs. Nihill, Acaster, and Ryland, so far from being generally accepted, were very little known; that, of the periodicals referred to, three were political journals, over which the church could have no control; that two others might be fairly appealed to, as shewing the opinions of particular part ties; and that another had offended the party to which it was supposed to belong, by the very statements for which dissenters would refer to it. These are plain facts, and plainly stated. This was an acceptance of a fair test, and a simple statement upon it; and yet this is all represented by the Congregational as subterfuge and shuffling! Such accusations, indeed, are a natural reply from one who knows he has not any other. Again, it was distinctly asked, in the British Magazine, what were acknowledged as authorities among the dissenting interest, and a promise was given, in all sincerity, that no reference should be made to those which are thought ill of. Instead of an answer to this plain question; instead of a list of authorities acknowledged by dissenters, comes, as usual, a torrent of foul words. It is wiliness, cant, hypocrisy, &c. &c. &c.

In conclusion, it should be said, that the Congregational Magazine promises next month to prove the unfairness of some citations of dissenting works by a very able and admirable writer in this Magazine. To that proof attention shall be paid, and if any improper citations have been made, no one, the present writer is sure, will be more ready to acknowledge his error than the person in question. But we shall see. In the mean time, the writer will say adieu to the Congregational Magazine.†

CATHOLIC MAGAZINE.

Of course, after the specimen given from the Catholic Magazine a few weeks back, no one who has the feelings of a gentleman would think of reading it, except on special necessity; and the only thought which can occur to any one about it, is wonder that a church like the Roman Catholic should not have a single journal so respectable, either in power or general decency of style and manner, as those of any class whatever of dissenters in this country. In turning over a collection of Magazines belonging to a book-club, and carefully avoiding the Catholic, the following sentence (the last in the last page of the December Number) struck the writer's eye, as he turned over the whole number together. "The melancholy interest was gratefully heightened (!) by a sound and practical and feeling address from the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Spencer, who condescended to pay this tribute to the memory of his fellow-student." Mr. Spencer preached a funeral sermon, in short, over a fellow student-and this is called an act of condescension! Condescension in a Christian minis

+ The only approximation to anything beyond abuse, is a statement that Binney's Life of Morell is not a book well received among dissenters. If this is so, of course it must be appealed to only for facts.

ter to shew the last respect to the corpse of a brother man-of the very lowest in the creation. Especial condescension to shew it to one his equal in everything but birth! Mr. Spencer must have changed other things besides his religion, if he is not nauseated by such attempts to flatter and secure him!

Ubi lapsa, one may indeed say of the Roman Catholic Church, when it is disgraced by a journal which knows no medium between the lowest and most vulgar reviling, and the most fulsome flattery. It was reported, that the mother of a convert to that church consoled herself with the reflection, that at least her son had chosen the religion of a gentleman. But she would have abstained from the remark if she had considered the Catholic Magazine as a fair representative of the feelings or language of the Roman Catholic Church.

THE MONTHLY REPOSITORY.

THIS Religious Journal, in its December number, uttered the most violent tirade against the army, and assured the people of Bristol how fortunate it was for them that their city was for three days in the hands of the rabble, rather than in that of an army! What would be said of a Church-of-England religious Journal which should thus mix politics and religion, and give such a picture of demagogues and Political Unionists as might be given, and not only be given, but might be proved to be true, and not to be mere outrageous absurdity, like the Monthly Repository's praises of the tender mercies of a drunken and furious mob?

DISSENTING MINISTERS.

IT is a curious fact, that while Radical and Dissenting writers are so loud against those members of the establishment who say that a church ought to be moderately well endowed, in order to induce persons of the higher ranks to enter it, and represent this as the height of baseness, they forget that a very curious confirmation of the argument which excites their anger is that the sons of rich dissenters rarely or never become Dissenting Ministers. How do they account for this fact?

How do they account for another, that a very large number of the sons of the most wealthy and old members of the dissenting interest, not only relapse to the abominations of the church, but actually enter its ministry? A very imperfect list was given from the Patriot last month, of the dissenting ministers who have become clergymen of the Establishment. The writer has now before him a list of three more, of seven sons of dissenting ministers, and nineteen sons of wealthy dissenters, who have entered the ministry of the Church of England. These are known to one person, and he is assured that a very little inquiry would enlarge this list to a great extent.

THINGS TO BE LAMENTED.

"A proneness to wander from the stated place of worship."

"Some new light has sprung up, some dreamer or miracle worker; some new discovery has been made, and the good old plain matter-of-fact truth has not been relished. Having become wiser than their teachers, some forsake home; or having heard of some who are wiser, they must be followed; and