orders to a leading member of the Camden Committee, who had advocated in his writings a scarcely disguised Romanism. This kicking-out a traitor who was preparing to desert, and only waiting to do a little more mischief, was a surprise and discomfiture to both Puseyites and Romanists; it had probably the effect of hastening the entire perversion of some of the former, whom the English church decidedly gained by losing.

The decline of Puseyism throughout England was nearly simultaneous with the blow it received in Cambridge. True, it still exists, but with greatly diminished influence and power of mischief. The numerous perversions to Romanism which took place during the years '46 and '47, though they gave the impression that the Tractarian heresy was spreading, were in truth signs of its losing ground. Some ultras of that school, finding that they could do nothing more in the Church of England and were rapidly becoming more and more insignificant there, went openly over to that communion to which they had virtually belonged for some time previous. With the exception of Mr. Newman, they were no loss in the way of talents, and generally they were no loss at all, except for the wealth which, in some instances, they transferred to the enemy. The old lady of Babylon always keeps a good look-out after the sinews of war, and in this respect the apostasy of some titled members of the English Church is certainly to be regretted.

People who were watching in 1844 for the next reaction in that Church feared it might be German neology. It

was thought some of the younger Oxford men had an ominous inclination that way. The reaction that came over the whole people of England of indignant resistance to Papal aggression was not foreseen, partly because the amount of impudence that called it forth was indeed hard to anticipate.

With a few words on this subject of papal aggression I will close the present chapter. The matter is not irrelevant, for it was doubtless the Puseyite movement that encouraged the Pope to his insulting attempt; and it is so generally misunderstood in this country that I cannot refrain from using my humble endeavors to set forth the difficulty in a truer light than that in which it is usually represented by editors and their correspondents.

Much would-be ridicule has been expended on the folly of being alarmed at a name. "The Pope does not try to dispossess the English clergy of their revenues," says one (admirable moderation on the Pope's part!); "hé only calls his vicars Bishops of Manchester, Westminster, &c. The other day he created an Archbishop of New York, and we never made any fuss about it. How admirably does our republican security of religious liberty contrast," &c., and then comes a comparison much to John Bull's disadvantage. Now the two cases stand on an entirely different footing. With us no religious sect has any direct connexion with the government (and only one sect-the universally aggressive one-has tried to have any indirect connexion), consequently there may be any number of bishops of different sects in a place, calling themselves bishops of that place without interfering with one

another in the eye of the law, or intruding upon the ground of the magistrate. Thus John Hughes signs himself" Archbishop of New York;" everybody knows this means merely that he is Archbishop of the Romish church here; that he has no jurisdiction over Protestants, nor can interfere with them or their clergymen. There may be a Protestant Episcopal, a Methodist, and a Romish Bishop of Massachusetts or Boston, and the Governor of Massachusetts feel no apprehension. But in England the National Church is part of the state; the bishop has temporal as well as spiritual jurisdiction. Any man who sets himself up as a bishop alongside of him is encroaching on his political authority; it is like Mr. Dorr declaring himself Governor of Rhode Island, which title, I presume, he would not have been allowed to retain even had he refrained from attempting at once to seize on the ensigns and munitions of government. And were the Romish pseudobishops allowed to keep quiet possession of their new titles, they might before long proceed to usurp territorial jurisdiction and ecclesiastical revenue as a consequence of them (for these priests are clever hands at "trying it on "), and it would not be altogether contrary to the spirit of the British Constitution that they should do so. * Now if a man turns round and says, "But this is all wrong; there ought not to be any connexion of Church and State, and the English

* It is true that their designations are not the same as any now existing in the Established Church. But some of them are taken from places where it is very likely that there will be English bishops; Manchester for instance.

should abolish theirs," this is begging the question. The English State Church may be a bad one, but at any rate it is the church of the majority and the church of the government, and while it is so, government and individuals must accept it as a fixed fact, just as we do slavery in our southern states, or universal suffrage, or naturalization of foreigners. If we are jealous of the interference of strangers on the subject of slavery, which every man at the north allows to be a terrible evil, why should we be surprised at the indignation of the English when strangers meddle with the prerogatives of their church, a matter much more immediately connected with the government (for it is universal throughout the country, while slavery here is only partial and local), and which they regard as one of their greatest blessings?

INFERIORITY OF OUR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN SCHOLARSHIP.

ἀλλ ̓, ὦγαθ', ουδὲ μουσικὴν ἐπίσταμαι.—ARISTOPH. EQUIT. ν. 188.

In comparing University education-that is to say, the highest and most liberal style of education-in England and in our own country, it is but natural, since Classical studies professedly lie at the foundation of it in both, that we should begin by contrasting the pupils' proficiency in such studies. What English scholarship is, the reader may have had some opportunity of judging from the preceding pages. What American is we shall now proceed to examine.

As I am about to say a great deal that is unusual, unpopular, and pretty sure to give offence, it may be as well, by way of preliminary, to anticipate a summary way of disposing of all my remarks, likely to be adopted in certain quarters. It is a stock argument against any man, possessing, or supposed to possess an independent property, and having ever travelled or resided abroad, when he makes any assertion not flattering to the popular vanity-an argument which may be briefly expressed thus: This man cannot give any valuable information to American citizens, because from his position and associations he does not know what the