ordination examinations are severe, and therefore that somehow or other those who pass them must have scraped together a certain amount of theological information. I can fancy Pater- or Materfamilias forwarding to you, sir, lists of the books which the Bishop's chaplain sent the other day to their "dear boy."

They would tell you how that their "dear boy" was so overwhelmed at the amount of learning which it seemed necessary that he should get up, and of the very existence and nomenclature of which he was not previously aware, that he at once proposed becoming a backwoodsman, a tea planter, or a cotton grower, sooner than run the risk of reviving the pangs of his "Little Go," and of being turned back with the advice to "read a little longer and come up next time;"that, however, consoling himself with the assurances he heard on all sides that there were many fools in the church, he plucked up his courage, and not only was not plucked himself, but, in an inconceivably short space of time, passed a very creditable examination. The solution of this is, that the bishops are making praiseworthy exertions to raise the standard of clerical intellect and attainment, but with, I suspect, too often this result, that however high the standard which they propose, they are obliged practically to lower it to the level of the men who present themselves for ordination. A young man of respectable character, with a good knowledge of his Bible and of the Greek Testament, would think himself hardly used, and an exceptional case, if rejected on the ground that he was deficient in other branches of theological learning. It is scarcely necessary to point out how all this bears upon the particular defect of bad sermons. The author of "A Few Words about Sermons" truly says: “To transform sleeping truths into waking truths, we have only to recast them." And this remark strikes at the root of the matter, for it is the absence of originality in the expression of them, that robs all the truths preached of half their force.

But this recoining of old truths in our own mint requires that we should think them out for ourselves; and this again involves the devoting of much time and much labour to reading, reflection, and writing. As matters now stand, candidates for orders are not obliged to bestow the labour, and cannot give the time. How then can they write sermons? Can they create without material? Exacting public, -you expect them to make bricks, and do not provide that they should have straw!

The Bible, being the only source of religious truth, is the great mine from whence sermon material is to be obtained; but the mine must be assiduously worked by each, there must be no mere turning over of the heaps which bygone workmen have accumulated; for these contain more rubbish than ore.

Few men have the moral courage to subject themselves to labour on principle. The generality at least of young men will do anything to shirk the effort of hard and independent thought. Hence, the shelf is full of commentaries, skeletons, and lithographed sermons. The latter are altogether objectionable, being, in fact, though not in intention, impostures. The skeletons are only useful when made each man for himself: you cannot breathe life into another man's dry bones. The commentaries it may be advisable to read after you have written one

for yourself, which, if divinity students would diligently do, they would amass by the way an immense amount of sermon material.

I do not wish to maintain that every clergyman must be a theologian, in the conventional sense of the word; but I do maintain, that two years of more or less exclusive preparation for the ministry is absolutely necessary in these days to furnish the most humble aspirant for a quiet country charge with mere elementary professional qualifications.

This, too, should be secured without sacrificing the advantages of a general education (which it is now more than ever expedient a clergyman should have), or the great social advantages of a university career. I cannot now do more than allude to it, but it would be a great evil, if theological colleges took the place of the universities in the education of the clergy. Much of the good feeling that exists between the higher classes of the laity and the clergy is to be attributed to the collegiate sympathies which they have in common; and to isolate earlier than necessary from the general society of their equals the class which is afterwards to supply the guides and instructors of the community, would have a most pernicious influence upon both.

Is there, then, anything in the constitution of our Oxford university that renders it impossible for her to give those of her sons who intend to take orders a special preparation for the ministry?

Let the Dublin university receive her meed of praise. Before her Divinity Testimonium can be conferred, two years must be spent in attendance upon divinity lectures, and two examinations have to be passed!

It would not interest your readers to have discussed the different modes in which some system similar to this might be carried out at Oxford; but, though I could name many, I should be hard put to it to find a good reason for the fact that we are without one.

Even supposing that the present curriculum remained unaltered, yet if men who looked forward to the church as a profession would make a point of going early to the university,-not later, say, than eighteen, they could go through the ordinary course in three years, and a supplemental divinity course in two; or, they might be allowed to keep their first divinity year whilst preparing for their "second schools," which, as regards the length of their residence, would come to the same thing, but which would give them more leisure for their general studies. But if five years' residence at the university was thought to be too long, some modifications might be introduced into the present system of examinations which would bring the ordinary course, and a divinity course as well, within the compass of four years. In conclusion, there is, besides the matter of sermon writing, a subject which is exciting just now a great deal of attention, and which, from its close connection with the deficiencies of clerical education, I must not leave unnoticed: I mean, the spread of what are called rationalistic opinions. Those who maintain them will hardly need to be persuaded of the theological ignorance of the great mass of the clergy; for they have, it is said, built largely upon the assumption of it in their writings. But it is those who think these opinions to be dangerous and erroneous who ought to awake to the fact that the

absence of sound theological knowledge is the most favourable condition for the promulgation of error.

If it is the exception to find a clergyman capable of philosophically defending the truths to which he yet considers himself pledged; if he can too often only bring broad assertion and sweeping denunciation against those who so subtily assail the foundations of his faith, to what is it to be attributed, if not to some defect in his training? Truth surely does not emasculate the intellect? Is heresy only to be distinguished by calm argument and courteous logic? Are orthodoxy and ability to be apparently scarcely on speaking terms?

The great secret of the success of heresy is the indolence of the orthodox. If the heretics of history were passed in review before us, we should see subtle logicians, deep thinkers, calm philosophers; and if they triumphed, it was because they did not meet antagonists of their own calibre.

Oh, Alma Mater! why send your children, untrained and unarmed, to fight the fight of faith; to discharge arduous duties without preparation, and to meet strong and subtle enemies protected only by the innocence of ignorance?

The scandalous defects in our theological training too surely point out where the fault of our clerical deficiencies lies. I love my university, and hope that she will anticipate the public in finding a remedy.-I am, Sir, yours respectfully, OXONIENSIS.

THE NEW EDUCATIONAL CODE.

AN educational minute issued from Whitehall, embodying a new code for the management of schools and the administration of government aid, has spread consternation amongst the friends of education throughout the country. For the last fortnight the public prints have been crowded with the reports of public meetings, protests, and remonstrances. We have endeavoured to view the matter calmly on both sides; for there is one view of the subject which we think has not had justice done to it; the view taken, we presume, by Lord Granville and the Privy Council of Education. It should not be forgotten that the educational grant, which originated only about twenty years ago, has gone on increasing from year to year, especially during the last ten years, until it now amounts to about a million sterling. Even in the expenditure of a nation this is a large sum. And the advocates of the system as it now exists maintain, and truly maintain, that the work is far from being accomplished, and consequently that the annual grant will have to be increased, perhaps doubled; for we have seen two millions stated as the sum which may probably be required some few years hence. Now, it is in vain to close our eyes to

the reluctance with which even the present amount is granted. It is, no doubt, a serious addition to our national expenditure; and the feeling is a growing one, that it has been somewhat profusely, and in a great many instances very unwisely, spent. The capitation fee hitherto paid is a bounty; a bounty, in too many instances, to those who least require it, the upper class of our well-paid mechanics and operatives. The really poor scarcely derive any benefit from it; it is given for regular attendance, and the attendance of their children is and must be broken and irregular. Thus, two or three hundred pounds have been paid, in many wealthy parishes, from the national purse, to educate in schools and school houses, more costly and far more imposing than the parish church and its modest mansion, the children of those who, making proper allowance for their station in life, are more competent to pay for their instruction than the tradesmen of the district, the poor curate, or the probably still poorer incumbent. The same profuse expenditure has prevailed both in the style of the colleges for the national schoolmasters, and in the style of their education. It has for some time been evident to those who looked beneath the surface, that this was a state of things which could not last; and it was without surprise we learned, more than eighteen months ago, that the government had resolved upon retrenchment, and had indeed officially stated that they intended to reduce their grants to training colleges. Our own hope and expectation, as repeatedly expressed in the Christian Observer, has been, that the education scheme might be made more solid and less ambitious; that schools for the really poor might share in the national bounty, from which they are virtually excluded; and above all, that the only ground on which a national bounty on education can be justified should be more steadily kept in view: namely, to teach the child his duty towards God, and his duty towards his neighbour.

So much, then, may be said on behalf of government as represented by the Council of Education, and so much, for our own part, we feel bound in justice to concede. They have gone forward rashly, but they had to learn experience. As experience was gained, it was reasonable to expect they should revise their code. But now, with a precipitation unworthy of a national board, and even with something which wears the appearance of harshness and injustice, they all at once begin, not merely to retrace their steps and amend their errors, but to abandon those whom we can describe only as the victims of their own policy. In their haste to cure the defects of the old system, they introduce a new one still more objectionable.

We have said before, and we are prepared to abide by it, that the only ground on which government interference in edu

cation can be justified at all, is the same on which a national church depends: the dissenter who accepts government aid for his school, and declaims against government aid to religion, conducts a suicidal argument. If the latter be wrong, the former is utterly indefensible; except indeed on the principle of the Communists, which makes the nation one grand workshop, and the government the managers of the concern.

Mr. Miall regards the new code with favour, as tending to do away with all aid to education. Let us do Mr. Miall justice: he is a consistent dissenter; this is the legitimate result of the voluntary system; not only a fair but a necessary inference from it.

On what principle can we justify the levying of a tax on the small tradesman, who, struggling hard, pays for the education of his own child out of his own purse, in order to educate gratuitously the child of the mechanic who lives in the adjoining court, except it be the moral and religious one? It is for the interest of the state that its population should be virtuous and diligent, and therefore they must be brought under the restraints and influences of religion; and assuming that the mechanic aforesaid cannot provide this education for his child, it is at once sound policy and an imperious duty in the state to provide it for him; just as it is the duty of the state, for the same, as well as for much higher reasons, to provide a spiritual education out of the public purse, for the child's parents. With this, however, the duty of the state begins and terminates. With the higher branches, the luxuries of education, she has no concern. Schools in which these mental accomplishments are taught, are a misuse of the public property. So far, then, is it from being a question whether the government ought to insist on a religious education, it seems to us that, without religion, the government has no right to educate at all. Hence again it follows, that the poorer the parent the higher should be the bounty for the education of the child; till, in the case of the well-to-do mechanic, it should almost, if not entirely, disappear. He should be compelled to educate his own child; and compelled he may be by a very simple process, which we are happy to learn is beginning to find favour with educational theorists. It is, that no child shall be bound an apprentice or made capable of earning wages, until he has passed a simple examination in the first rudiments of Christian and secular learning.

The really poor man's child is sent, when two or three years old, to the infant school: and the old-fashioned infant school is an admirable institution; for at seven or eight years old the little creature must be taken from school and set to work. In town and country, at eight years old, the girl is an infant governess. She minds the baby; in the mother's absence she