Walter Lucas Brown, Christ Church. George Horatio Hadfield, Pembroke Coll. Richard Seymour, Christ Church. James Tanner, Queen's College. Charles Miller, John Shuldham, James Thomas Round, William Beach Thomas, John Henry Newman, H. Arthur Woodgate, Examiners. In the First Class of Discip. Math. et Phys. Walter Lucas Brown, Christ Church. Theodore J. Cartwright, University Coll. George William Hope, Christ Church. Charles Saxton, Christ Church. In the Second Class of Discip. Mathemat. et John Evans, Worcester College. Augustus P. Saunders, Examiners. The number of the Fourth Class, namely, of those who were deemed worthy of their Degree, but not deserving of any honourable distinction, was 128. CAMBRIDGE. The late Richard Hurd, Esq. of Worcester, has bequeathed the sum of 2,0001. four per cents. to Emmanuel College, for the purpose of increasing the stipends of the Master and Senior Fellows of that Society. Mr. B.W. Beatson, B.A. has been elected a Foundation Fellow of Pembroke Coll. The Craven Scholarship held by the Rev. Henry Malden, M. A. of Trinity College, has been declared vacant. The examination of the candidates for it will take place on the 28th of the present month. James Lockhart, M. A. of University College, Oxford, has been admitted ad eundem of this University. The Plumian Professorship of Astronomy has become vacant by the death of Robert Woodhouse, Esq. M. A. of Caius College. The electors are, the ViceChancellor, the Masters of Trinity, Christ, and Caius Colleges, and the Lucasian Professor. If any of the Masters be ViceChancellor, the Master of St. John's acts in his stead. Such will be the case at the time of election, Dr. Davy, the Master of Caius College, being Vice-Chancellor for the present year. Graces to the following effect have passed the Senate: 1. To appoint Mr. Martin of Trinity, Mr. Melvill of St. Peter's, Mr. Hind of Sidney, Mr. Walker of Queen's, Professor Henslow of St. John's, and Mr. Bayne of Trinity, Examiners of the Questionists in January. and Scholars of the University of Cambridge in Senate assembled, sealed with their common seal, and bearing date the twenty-second day of December one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, [wherein, after reciting that a difference of opinion had arisen in their body respecting the election of the Professors of Mineralogy, Botany, and Anatomy, they requested me to determine, after having heard Counsel, the manner in which these Professors should in future be elected,] I have accepted the reference thereby made to me, and have been attended by Mr. Alderson and Mr. Amos, the Counsel of the several parties, and have heard such arguments, and perused and examined such papers and evidences, as they thought proper to lay before me respecting the matters in difference; and now having maturely considered the same, I request you to make known to the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars, this my opinion and determination on the premises, that is to say: First, I am of opinion, and so determine, that although the University has, from time to time, appointed several Professors of Anatomy, Botany, and Mineralogy, and in several instances has in so doing apparently assumed that such offices continued to exist after the death of the last Professor, yet, in fact, whatever has been hitherto done on each and all of these occasions has amounted to no more than to temporary provisions, each made for the particular appointment at that time contemplated, and which had not the effect of binding the University to continue the office, or to appoint another Professor after the next vacancy; consequently, that the University has not yet founded or established any permanent Professorship, either of Anatomy, Botany, or Mineralogy; and that no such permanent offices do at this time exist: Secondly, I am of opinion, and so determine, that either strangers with the previous or subsequent consent of the University, or the University itself, by Grace or Byelaw, may, ad eruditionis amplificationem, found and establish permanent Professorships in Anatomy, Botany, or Mineralogy, or in any other branch of science or liberal learning, and may, by the terms of the foundation, prescribe any reasonable mode of election which they may deem most proper; and that, by so doing they would not infringe the Statutes of the University made in the twelfth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth: Thirdly, I am of opinion, and so determine, that if the University, or any stranger, should found any new Professorship, and should not, by the terms of the foundation, provide any particular mode of election, the case would then fall within the provisions of the fortieth chapter of those Statutes, [that "De nominatione et electione Lectorum et aliorum officiariorum," and that the elections must be made in conformity therewith, according to the mode prescribed by the thirtyfourth chapter of the same Statutes [that "De electione Pro-Cancellarii:"] Fourthly, I am of opinion, and so determine, that the words "a vobis eligatur," or other equivalent words, used in a Grace submitted to the Senate, are not sufficient to prescribe any particular mode of election; such words being, in my judgment, equally satisfied by an election made with, or without, previous nomination; which election is, in neither case, made by the Senate assembled in houses, but by the Members of the Senate voting individually; and, therefore, that in cases where an election is made in pursuance of a Grace so worded, and where no particular mode of election is otherwise prescribed, the mode of election must be governed by the fortieth chapter of the Statutes before cited: In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of Decem- JOHN RICHARDSON. RUGBY SCHOOL. At a meeting of the Trustees of Rugby School, held on the 17th of December last, the Rev. Thomas Arnold, M. A., late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, elected to succeed to the Head Mastership upon the resignation of the Rev. Dr. Wooll, who will retire in July next. NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS. was A Review of Mr. Ollivant's Sermon, together with some account of St. David's College, is postponed. "A Churchman " is thanked, but we do not think it necessary to insert his letter. We shall perhaps avail ourselves of the hint of "A Constant Reader at Lichfield." We regret the communication of "Lloyd W." cannot be inserted. We shall, if possible, notice the excellent address of the Committee for the Deanery of Ackley, in aid of S. P. G. We postpone articles on Natural Religion, and the Literature and Religion of the Persians. "Philologicus," and "B. Clericus," have been received. CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER. FEBRUARY, 1828. REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. ART. I.-Observations on the Bill now before Parliament for regulating the Marriages of Dissenters who deny the Doctrine of the Trinity. By the Rev. PHILIP LE GEYT, Vicar of Marden, Kent. Pp. 72. London, Rivingtons. 1827. OUR readers are, of course, aware that a Bill is now before the legislature for regulating the marriages of "Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England of the Unitarian persuasion." The provisions of that Bill will be found in the Christian Remembrancer for September, 1827 (p. 582); together with a report of the speeches delivered respecting it, in the House of Lords, by Lord Eldon and the Bishop of Chester. From the Christian Remembrancer for December last, they will further have learned, that on the 12th of May 1827 a petition was presented by Joseph Hume, Esq. to the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain, on behalf of "the Elders, Deacons, and Members of the Church of God, meeting in London, and known as Freethinking Christians." In p. 752 of that number, our readers will find the whole of that petition printed at length. This document will be found to contain a very ample confession of the faith of the Freethinking Church, together with perhaps the most impudent libel on the Church of England, that ever issued from any workshop either of sedition or fanaticism. This sublimate, however, violent and corrosive as it was, does not appear to have awakened, in the slightest degree, the irritability of our liberal and candid legislators. The invective of the Freethinkers was received by them with the most magnanimous composure, and laid on their table, we believe, nemine dissentiente. Whether the "Protestant Dissenters of the Unitarian persuasion," and the "Freethinking Church of God," are one and the same society, or whether the latter may be regarded as spirits "more potent than the former," though from the same deep, we are not able confidently to inform our readers. We should rather apprehend, however, that the Freethinkers, if they differ at all from their brethren the Unitarians, differ only as those admitted to the greater mysteries, differed from those who had been initiated only into the less. And we are led to form this judgment, from the prayers of their petition; the first of which is, "That the petitioners may be relieved from the necessity of solemnizing their marriage according to the ritual of the English Church; and this, either by extending to their members the same exemption from the operation of the Marriage Act, as that which is enjoyed by Jews and Quakers; or, by permitting them to contract marriages before the justices of the peace, as in the days of the Commonwealth." And then follows a requisition which shows a degree of transcendent illumination not yet exhibited, we believe, by the Protestant Unitarian Dissenters. As a summary termination of all the evils of which they complain, they beg that the Honourable House would just be pleased to put an end to the connexion between Church and State !!! These demands on the part of the Unitarians and the Freethinkers have called forth the indignation of the author before us. His pamphlet is evidently the production of a person zealously and fervently attached to the Church of which he is a minister, and anxious to vindicate her doctrines from contempt, and her servants from degradation. It betrays, throughout, considerable commotion of spirit; more, perhaps, than is altogether compatible with a steady exercise of judgment. Of this we have an instance in p. 22, in which the author considers marriage as an institution so completely and essentially religious, that it may be questioned, "whether magistrates, as laymen, are in conscience justified in interfering in the performance of the marriage ceremony?—whether such interference be not intermeddling with holy things?-whether it be not an usurpation of the priest's office?" And this doubt he enforces in a note, which sets forth divers signal instances of divine wrath on persons who have been guilty of offences of this nature. First, we have the case of Korah and his company, (Numb. xvi.) who gathered themselves together against Moses and Aaron; and who, in consequence, with all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them, and they perished from among the congregation. And then we have the instance of Saul, who, for usurping the authority of the priesthood and offering sacrifice, lost his kingdom. Next comes the fate of Uzzah (2 Sam. vi.) who, by the immediate hand of God, was struck dead on the spot for touching the Ark. And lastly, we have the punishment of Uzziah, who was smitten with leprosy, for attempting to intrude into the priest's office and to burn incense before the Lord. (2 Chron. xxvi.) The author then adds, that the magistrates must judge for themselves, whether these instances of divine displeasure are applicable to their interference in the solemnization of "holy matrimony"!!! Now, we trust that we shall not be suspected of any wish or attempt to degrade or desecrate the most solemn of all merely human contracts. But,-before his Majesty's justices of the peace surrender themselves to the apprehension, that the legislature may be preparing a pit to swallow them up quick, or exposing them to disease and sudden death,— we think it but fair that they should have the means of "judging for themselves," whether there are not other considerations amply sufficient to relieve them from all such terrors, in case the Parliament should be pleased to require their interference in the completion of the marriage contract. We are not to be understood as expressing an approbation of such a mode of relief to the Unitarians and the Freethinkers. But we do conceive that before any judgment be formed on this part of the subject, the following observations of an illustrious judge, now living, should be most attentively considered The opinions which have divided the world, or writers at least, on this subject, are generally two. It is held by some persons that marriage is a contract merely civil; by others, that it is a sacred, religious, and spiritual contract, and only to be so considered. The jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court was founded on ideas of this last described nature. But, in a more correct view of this subject, I conceive that neither of these opinions is perfectly accurate. According to juster notions of the marriage contract, it is not merely either a civil or religious contract; and, at the present time, it is not to be considered as, originally and simply, either one or the other. It is a contract according to the law of nature, antecedent to civil institution, and which may take place to all intents and purposes, wherever two persons of different sexes engage, by mutual contracts, to live together The contract thus formed in the state of nature, is adopted as a contract of the greatest importance in civil institutions, and it is charged with a vast variety of obligations merely civil. . . . . . . In most countries it is also clothed with religious rites, even in rude societies, as well as in those more distinguished for their civil and religious institutions. Yet in many of those societies, they may be irregular, informal, and discountenanced on that account, and yet not be invalidated... The rule prevailed in all times, as the rule of the Canon law, which existed in this country and in Scotland, till other civil regulations interfered in this country; and it is the rule which prevails in many countries of the world at this day)—that a mutual engagement or betrothment is a good marriage, without consummation, according to the law of nature, and binds the parties accordingly The Canon law itself, with all its attachment to ecclesiastical forms, adopts this view of the subject, as is well described by Swinburne, in his Book on Espousals, where he says, that it is a present and perfect consent the which alone maketh matrimony, without either public solemnization, or consummation; for neither is the one nor the other the essence of matrimony, but consent only.'t-Judgment of Sir W. Scott in the case of Lindo v. Belisario, Haggard's Consistory Reports, vol. I. p. 230-232. Hockmannus de Benedictione Nuptiarum, c. ii. s. 3. "Non minor fuit paganorum circa conjugia religio, &c." This opinion of this eminent civilian is amply supported by the decisions of the sages of the common law. Lord Chief Justice Holt said that a contract per verba de prasenti was a marriage; namely, "I marry you;" "you and I are man and wife;" and that this amounts to an actual marriage as if it had been in facie ecclesiæ. Cited 10 East 286. Lord Mansfield distinguished between "a lawful canonical marriage," and "a marriage in fact;" (1 W. Bl. 632;) and he allowed that a marriage between Quakers was "a marriage in fact:" (ibid. and Doug. 166, Birt v. Barlow :) thus |