and population of England might naturally raise. This state of things is by no means of recent growth; but recent circumstances have powerfully called attention to it. In former days the great bulk of the youth educated at Oxford, and a very large proportion of those who graduated at Cambridge, took Orders in the English Church; so that mon without an academical degree were rarely seen in her pulpits, except in the poorer and more rugged northern counties, for whose spiritual wants the seminary of St. Bees was originally intended to provide. But of late, whilst increasing population and the consequent subdivision of parishes are constantly calling for more clergy, the proportion of graduates who "enter the Church," to use a convenient though inaccurate phrase, has rapidly diminished. Some yours ago, ene-that the last ordinations, one-third, are said to have been literates. This is a most undesirable state of things; for about disparaging zeal and piety, these qualities cannot supply the want of that wider and more refined cultivation, and of that scholar

which, in the rule, can only be stained by an education culminating at the University. Nor is it well that an increasing proportion of the ministers of the Church should be taken from a lower rank of life. The condition of the Gallican Church abroad, and of the Romish Church in Ireland, gives a significant warning of the inevitable result. What the fate of the English Church would be if her pulpits were chiefly filled with devout and intrepid assertors of verbal inspiration, ready to challenge men of science to an unequal conflict in the attempt to "reconcile Genesis and geology,”—unfamiliar with modern thought, as it is found in those seminaries of refined scholarship, where the most accomplished youth of the nation and their instructors mutually develop it, and meeting critical or scientific difficulties by evangelical anathemas or ritualistic pomp-it is easy to conjecture. A highly cultivated clergy is required to lead the religious thought of a highly cultivated people. The religion of the multitude will not rise above the intellectual level of its teachers. Accordingly, the diminished supply of graduates at their ordinations has roused the misgivings of several of the bishops, and contributed to animate the proceedings of the Oriel meeting. Nor can the diocesan theological colleges, which have lately sprung up, satisfy the emergency. In so far as they are auxiliary to the Universities, by giving some theological training to men who have taken degrees in arts, they only arouse a feeling of discontent with those venerable bodies which, with so much larger means and apparatus, and with the command of the choicest intellect of the country, yet give a training in theology so inadequate as to require being thus supplemented: whilst, in so far as they enable men who have never had a University education to qualify for Orders, they are only contributing to flood the land with

a clergy whose predominance in numbers and influence would be disastrous to the Church.

Various causes may be assigned for the diminished supply of University men. The throwing open of the Indian and Civil Services to competition; the immense development of our commerce, and the corresponding rise in estimation of commercial pursuits; the new career opened by colonization to our youth,-all these things have given much greater choice to young men then they used to have, and multiplied the possibilities of life. And besides increased allurements from without, there is a decrease of attraction within the Church. Her wealth is much more evenly distributed and less strikingly displayed than it used to be; the prizes are not so great, and the general position of clergymen is probably not quite so high as formerly. And though it may be said that men should be influenced by higher motives in the choice of the clerical profession, it is obvious that not only their own feelings, but the plans and wishes of their parents, will be greatly modified by other than merely spiritual considerations.

But besides the foregoing reasons, it is possible there may be a further cause for the diminished supply of graduates to the Church. Clerical training has not kept pace with the training for other professions.. And though, at first sight, this might seem rather to hold out an inducement to enter the ministry, as requiring less study and self-denial than other professions do, it may very possibly act in the directly opposite way. There is a generous enthusiasm in youth which is not satisfied with that which costs no trouble, which turns away from that which excites no interest. And this feeling will be naturally strongest when the neglected subject is one which takes up so much attention, and engages the minds of men so much, as the subject of religion does. When youths at the University perceive that the momentous questions which are unsettling men's minds do not seem to rouse to greater activity those bodies which should be specially concerned about them, it is no wonder if they are chilled and perhaps a little disgusted with this apathy. The diminished supply of University men to the ministry may partly, therefore, be ascribed. to the neglect of theology at the Universities. The present paper will confine itself to some considerations and suggestions on this latter subject.

I.

"The absence of any efficient theological training at the Universities which profess to feed the ministry of the Church is a crying evil, which nothing but the acquiescence in anomalies, characteristic of this country, would have suffered to remain. It is not too much to say

that there is no country of Europe, Protestant or Romanist, in which so anomalous a state of things exists: every Church-Lutheran, Reformed, or Romish-but our own provides that her ministers sha!! undergo two or three years of theological study and preparation before they enter on their office."* It is a disgraceful fact, that these woe's are still as true as when they were originally penned fifteen years ago; and it is the more disgraceful, because the great foundations which have so neglected their duty to the Church owe almost all their wealth to ecclesiastical ideas, and were much more intended to provide for ecclesiastical than for secular purposes. Oxford and Cambridge men must be aware of the state of the case, though it may le doubted whether they are sufficiently alive to it: for the benefit of others it may be well to give a sketch of the nature and amount of the theological education provided by the richest Universities for the future clergy of the richest Church in the world.

At Oxford there are six professors of divinity, or its cognate subjects, the Regius, Lady Margaret's, the Professors of Ecclesiastical History, of Pastoral and of Exegetical Theology, and of Hebrew. It is hardly necessary to add that these professors are amply endowed, being all of them, except the Professor of Exegetical Theology, canons of Christ Church, whilst the Regius Professor enjoys moreover the living of Ewelme. Probably not less than six thousand pounds a year, perhaps a good deal more, is thus spent on the staff of instructors in theology. Let us now see what is the amount of instruction imparted.

Each candidate for Holy Orders is required to attend not sir, lu turo courses of lectures, each of these compulsory courses being completed in a single term! How many lectures are delivered in each such course the writer is not aware from personal knowledge; but the Regius Professor's used to consist of twelve lectures. So that in a single term after the youth has taken his Bachelor's degree, he is qualified, in the judgment of the authorities, for ordination! Whilst he has been spending three years, or twelve terms, on his course in arts, not to say anything of the time spent previously at school, twelve or fourteen weeks is regarded as sufficient to spend upon theology! It is no answer to this to say that the undergraduate course at Oxford embraces a good deal of theological information, unless it be supposed that teachers of religion need hardly any knowledge of the subject beyond that which every educated gentleman should have.

But if the student is not overburdened with lectures, nor distractel

Evidence of the Rev. E. A. Litton. Oxford University Commission Report: Evilence, p. 177. See also Rev. D. Melville's evidence, p. 55.

+ Oxford Commission: Evidence of Dr. Jacobson, p. 253.

by too great a variety of subjects, perhaps a rigorous examination at the end of these two formidable courses insures his having profited to the utmost by the little he has heard. Not at all: there is indeed an examination, but attendance at it is quite optional; the certificates he must present are given not for his tested proficiency, but for his bodily presence in the lecture-room.

If it be asked, What can be done in a course of twelve lectures? the best answer will be given by Dr. Jacobson's syllabus of his course.* Here it is:

"Lecture I. Introductory to the Study of Theology and some Points of Clerical Duty.

“II., III. On some of the Aids to arriving at the Sense of Holy Scrip

ture.

"IV., V. On the Creeds, particularly on the three incorporated into our own Services.

"VI., VII. On the Study of Church History.

"VIII. On the Continental Reformation.

"IX. On the English Reformation.

"X., XI. On the Book of Common Prayer.

"XII. On some of the Practical Duties of a Clergyman in Charge of a Parish."

Fancy what kind of discussion such a subject as the Continental Reformation, or the English Reformation, or the practical duties of a parish priest, can receive within the limits of a single hour! or what can be done to elucidate the study of Church history in two hours!

Of course the University does not object to her alumni attending all the six courses delivered by the six professors. But they are not required to do so; and in such cases the minimum required will generally be the maximum performed. This is indeed pretty clear from the evidence of the Regius Professor; for whilst his public course-which is repeated three times each year for the convenience of students, so that they may not be detained at the University more than one term after they have passed the final school in arts-was attended (in 1850) by an aggregate number of two hundred and thirtyfour, his private and uncompulsory lectures, delivered three times each week, were only attended by numbers varying from three to twentysix the average attendance for each term being exactly thirteen !†

I am not aware that there has been any material difference in the numbers attending of later years: the courses delivered do not seem to have materially altered.

We now proceed to the sister University. Cambridge possesses four professors of divinity, the Regius, Lady Margaret's, the Norrisian, and the Hulsean, besides a professor of Hebrew. Lady Margaret's is probably the richest in the kingdom, being endowed with a net

income of more than eighteen hundred pounds a year, out of which, however, the present professor nobly devotes seven hundred a year to the building of a divinity school. Nor is the Regius Professor to be pitied, his income being about twelve hundred pounds a year. The Professor of Hebrew is also adequately provided for by a stall in Ey. The Norrisian Professor, however, seems to compensate by his poverty for the wealth of the older and statelier foundations, his whole professorial income, according to the Cambridge Calendar, being only one hundred and thirty-five pounds a year.

Such being the theological staff, let us see what use the students are required to make of it. And here the authorities of Cambridge fall short even of the moderate demands of Oxford; for while at Oxford two courses are imperative, at Cambridge one course, which may consist of ten lectures, is sufficient! And even this solitary course is only indirectly imposed thus: Hardly any bishop will now ordain a Cambridge man unless he have passed what is still, by an amusing bull, called the "voluntary theological examination," and no student is admitted to this unless he produce a certificate of attendance on one course of divinity lectures. But whose course, and what its subject, are matters with which the University does not trouble itself. So that there is no systematic training in divinity, so far as the few lectures required on the subject are concerned.

Professorial teaching, or indeed all teaching, in theology being treated with such carelessness by the English Universities, it is no wonder that it should be slighted by the students. At Cambridge forty is said to be a large class; and though at Oxford the numbers attending the Regius Professor are much greater, this must be ascribed in great measure to the fact that his lectures are generally considered compulsory on all Oxford candidates for Orders, while at Cambridge no professor enjoys the same reputed monopoly of compulsion.

It is indeed sometimes said that the deficiencies of public instruction are compensated by the amount of private reading through which candidates for Orders are compelled to go. This defence has some shadow of truth, so far as the Universities are concerned, at Cambridge; at Oxford it has none. For no examination is there required of the student in divinity. And though the "voluntary theological" does enforce some reading on those who stand it successfully, it must after all be very elementary, since it may be passed within twelve weeks after the student has taken his degree. What would le thought if the University offered to confer its degrees within twelve weeks of matriculation! But what would be scouted in Arts is calmly accepted in Theology.

No doubt the defects in their theological schools are not to le charged solely on the two Universities. They cannot enforce attend