28 Bishops receive among them

30 Deans, about 150 Canons, and other Members of Cathedral establishments .

1500 Clergymen whose livings range from £500 to £2000 and upwards of annual value, and are reckoned at £700 on the average

1000 Clergymen whose Livings average £400

1500 Unbeneficed Fellows of Colleges, and others not engaged in the ordinary work of the Church 5000 Unbeneficed Curates

18148 Clergy therefore, divide among them

£157,200

178,000

1,050,000

400,000

960,000

505,120

nil.

nil.

£3,250,320

Speaking roughly, about £2,000,000 of this income is derived from tithe rent charge, and the remainder from glebe produce, funded property, pew rents, and a few other special sources. If the whole of it (taking off the portion assigned to the two hundred Cathedral Clergy) were made into a common fund and distributed to the Parochial Clergy, each would receive about £178 a year, which is no very extravagant a sum, considering that he often has to pay out from a third to one half of his income in Queen Anne's Bounty, parochial rates, land tax, &c., before he can touch a penny of it for his own domestic purposes. Such an account would go far to defeat a plea of extravagance.

A bold counsel might, indeed, allege that there were bodies of Dissenters who were as capable of doing the work which is now done by the Church of England as she is. But while most persons would think this a very bold assertion, and many would declare that experience, as far as it has gone, proves quite the reverse, the Equity Judge would certainly say that this was no reason whatever why one pound should be taken away from the annual income of the Church, and that if such a plea were admitted to be good, and judgment given in its favour, no man in England could count upon any secure footing in his estate or even in the salary which he was earning by his daily labour. "What!" the judge would say, "shall I ask for Blenheim on the plea that I can employ the estate as well as the Duke of Marlborough does? Or for Lord Palmerston's £5,000 a year because I feel in me au itching capacity for the government of my country?"

And, lastly, if it was pleaded that there were better ways of supplying funds for the Clergy than by tithes and other endowments, it might well be replied that this is an argument which has been alleged over and over again, but that hitherto it has been vox et præterea nihil; and that it would by no means do to disturb the old system until a new one of certain efficacy had been provided. The Church of England has claims, it is proved, on the National

purse go then, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ask him to provide some security for meeting those claims after "the State has resumed the endowment which the State has granted." We imagine that not even the boldest of bold Chancellors of the Exchequer would, as an honourable man, be willing to "resume" the endowments on such a condition.

With all the claims then, which the Church of England has to the possession of her present endowments, there is good reason to hope that she will have a very excellent chance of maintaining the status quo, whenever the time may come for trying the cause which Mr. Miall seems to say is soon to be entered against her in Parliament. What exact form this new attack upon her endowments is to take has not yet transpired: but, in whatever shape it may appear, we sincerely trust neither smoothness of speech nor threatening may divert the advocates of the Church of England from a bold maintenance of her traditional position as the position to which she is entitled both by Law and Equity; and that due regard may also be shown to the strict theological argument which we have indicated as being the true base line of all defensive operations.

THE VICAR OF GREAT STAUGHTON AGAIN.

A Brief Examination of prevalent Opinions on the Inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. By a Lay Member of the Church of England; with an Introduction by HENRY BRISTOW WILSON, B.D., Vicar of Great Staughton, Hunts; Author of the "Communion of Saints" (Bampton Lecture, 1851), "The National Church" (Essays and Reviews), 1860; &c., &c. London: Longmans. 1861.

"THE author of the following work," says Mr. Wilson in his lengthy introduction, "has been restrained by considerations which it is not necessary to specify, from prefixing his name to it. But he is already known to the public, as well as to the learned bodies in this country, and the range of his critical qualifications is only partially shown in the ensuing critical inquiries. His acknowledgment of the work would therefore have given it much greater weight than can possibly be lent to it in any other way."

It is much to be regretted, for the author's own sake, that this acknowledgment has been withheld, for we can assure him that "the work" needs all the adventitious "weight" which can possibly be lent to it," to save it from being blown into empty space by the first breath of a fair criticism. We do not wish to question "the range of his critical qualifications;" but we must say that

if "the ensuing Biblical inquiries" are at all an average specimen, the publication of his name would certainly reflect no credit on "the learned bodies in this country." He has written a book of two hundred and fifty-four pages, "because it is necessary,' he thinks" that laymen should come forward to examine questions of theology for themselves. The clergy are committed by the Creeds and Confessions of their Churches to certain articles of belief. At a comparatively early age, when their powers of reflection are immature, and while they are as yet incapable of seeing those difficulties to which deeper consideration may give rise, they become bound to an inflexible system from which it is scarcely possible that they should ever after extricate themselves." "They never think of questioning any of the principles or doctrines which have been handed down to them by the Church which is regarded as the hallowed depository of Divine Wisdom." "Thus they prejudge, instead of investigating, the questions which they are called on to determine." And, therefore, “in acting thus, they appear to" this "well-educated gentleman," as he considers himself, "to exhibit a want of simplicity, of faith, and of courage." “There are, no doubt, happily, in the ranks of the educated clergy, many honourable exceptions to these remarks." There is, for instance, the author's clerical sponsor, whose "simplicity" and "courage" consist in insinuating, through a haze of ambiguous phraseology, opinions which are inconsistent with the honest possession of the emoluments of Great Staughton; and whose "faith" is exemplified by a contemptuous disbelief of all the articles of the Apostles' Creed.

Our anonymous author is evidently ignorant that theology is a science, and that a science implies principles, which, once ascertained, are immutable, and to be taken for granted. Sceptics talk jeeringly of the bondage of traditional systems, and the folly of accepting conclusions at which we have not arrived by the flickering light of our own reason, without perceiving that their cavil, if it has any force at all, is as valid against other sciences as it is against theology. How many even of "well-educated gentlemen," work out the conclusion of any science for themselves? We all believe that the earth moves round the sun; yet how many of us have proved it, each for himself? We receive it on the authority of a few great names, though it certainly contradicts the evidence of our senses. The author forgets that life is for action, not for speculation; that if we make up our minds to believe nothing without proof, we shall never get at our first principles, and action will be impossible. If we are willing to receive by tradition and on trust the fundamental truths of all mundane sciences, is it so unreasonable to receive on trust also the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven? "We ought not," says Bacon, "to attempt to draw down or submit the mysteries of GOD to our reason; but

contrariwise, to raise and advance our reason to the Divine truth." (De Aug. VI.)

Our author is evidently of opinion that "a little learning" in theology is a blessed thing, and so he revels in his ignorance.

"Though not regularly instructed in theology, most well-educated gentlemen are quite as well able to judge of theological questions as the generality of their teachers; and they may easily, if they are directed to the proper sources of information, acquire a sufficient acquaintance with the main principles of the inquiry to enable them to form their own opinions on all the great questions at issue, such as the evidences of Christianity, the inspiration of the Scriptures, and the principal doctrines of revelation."-P. 209.

"The proper sources of information" at which the author himself appears to have imbibed his theological knowledge, and to which therefore, we suppose, he would direct his readers, are two or three of the sceptical writers of Germany, and three or four English writers, of whom Bishop Burnet and Archbishop Whately are chief. Having quaffed at these "Empyrean springs," the Biblical student is qualified "to form his own opinions on all the great questions" of theology; but we trust he will be wiser than our author, and not think it necessary to parade his silly opinions before the world. In plain language, and in sober earnest, we do not remember ever to have read two hundred and fifty-four pages of more unmitigated trash than the pretentious volume which lies before us. It is quite ludicrous to see the author here and there floundering on all fours over several pages to prove what nobody denies. For instance, he compares, in parallel columns, I S. Pet. i. 23-25, with Isa. xl. 58; lv. 11; and thinks that he has sufficiently disposed of the inspiration of S. Peter's Epistle, by the profound and original remark, that "the sense which S. Peter puts upon the words which he quotes from Isaiah, is evidently one which the prophet himself never contemplated."1 As if any one had ever said that it was!

Again :

"The Author of the Epistle (Hebrews) regards the 8th Psalm as having had reference to CHRIST, and as having received its fulfilment in Him; because, though we see not yet all things put under Him, we nevertheless behold Him crowned with glory and honour. The Psalmist, however, (verses 6-8,) appears to have thought of nothing more than the subjection of the brute creation to mankind, and to have contemplated no further application of his words."-P. 130.

On Romans iii. 9-20, we have the following brilliant com

ment:

'Now if the Apostle means (as he seems to mean) that the faith of the entire Jewish nation, and even of the whole world, (ver. 19) is established by each of the texts in question, it is quite evident that he 1 The italics here and elsewhere are the author's own.

is putting on them a sense which was not contemplated by the original writers."

Gal. iv. 21-31, enables our "well-educated" layman to bequeath to posterity another specimen of his rare critical acumen :-—

"It is, however, difficult to conceive that the simple narrative in Genesis was designed by its author to convey to future ages any such warning against a legal and ceremonial spirit, as S. Paul implies it to contain, when he says, 'Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?' and proceeds to give an allegorical sense to all the characters and incidents of the history. We are therefore compelled to conclude that the Apostle has ascribed to the author of the passage a refined didactic aim which was never in his contemplation." -P. 127.

Such are a very few of the ignorationes elenchi against which this great unknown runs his learned head.

Of course, after the examples of critical skill and prowess which we have given above, our readers will be prepared to find the credibility of the Gospel narrative utterly demolished by the author's remorseless goose-quill. Who can fail to be convinced by the following lucid and logical comment on S. Matt. v. 48, as compared with S. Luke vi. 36 ?

"Whether did CHRIST say, 'Be ye therefore perfect,' &c. (as S. Matthew informs us) or, 'Be ye therefore merciful,' &c. (as S. Luke reports)? The ideas differ, and both cannot well be correct representations of the original words."

Some pious well-meaning Christians indeed venture to think that our Blessed LORD may have used both forms of expressions, and that each Evangelist, here as elsewhere, repeats what best harmonises with the train of his own thoughts and the scope of his Gospel. But the idea of such a simple and obvious interpretation in this 20,000th year (see Ess. and Rev., p. 54) of the march of intellect ! True, S. John (xxi. 25), the last of the inspired writers, tells us that the Gospels contain a mere abstract of our LORD'S words and deeds; but S. John lived in an uncritical age, and though he was "the disciple whom JESUS loved," and did "lean on JESUS' bosom," it would be absurd to accept his testimony in preference to the "verifying faculty" of modern rationalists.

"It is further to be noticed that S. Matthew (xx. 20, 21) differs from S. Mark (x. 35, 37) in regard to the person or persons who solicited JESUS on behalf of James and John. S. Matthew says it was their mother, S. Mark says it was the disciples who did so."-P. 49.

Qui facit per alium facit per se, is a maxim of which the author seems never to have heard.

Here is another remarkable discrepancy between S. Luke and the other Evangelists: