respect. His very merits made him move, to all appearance, as seen by undergraduates, in an atmosphere of awfulness.

But when in the college chapel at the commencement of October term he preached to the members of Trinity, how lucidly he explained the foundation of morals, how penetratingly did he probe the conscience, how earnestly did he endeavour to strengthen them against the temptations, and prepare them for a manly endurance of and resistance to the difficulties of life; with what a fatherly regard he poured forth advice and warning, and how fully did he enter into all the recesses of the heart in search of inducements to nobleness and holiness of life! Then in the College Hall, when the annual distribution of prizes came round, how kindly were his encouragements, how big was his heart with love for those who had endeavoured to bring honour to their college by doing their duty, and how seldom he forgot the strife and labour the students had undergone! It was a grand sight-the stalwart and tall figure of this self-raised man, whose massive head was the home of so much knowledge as to entitle him to be regarded as a myrionous, one many minded; whose prone brow was heavy with the weight of thought, whose keen eyes were radiant with memories and hopes, and whose long grey hair told of the oncoming of years of which his large and fresh features showed but little sign-in his sonorous, dignified, yet urbane style of pointing out the manner in which it behoves man to acquire a knowledge of the must of the physical universe, and learn to obey the ought of moral life.

His college chapel sermons have been published, as have been others of his sermons, which show him in a favourable light as a philosophical divine. He edited, with a preface, the "Lectures, Essays, and Literary Remains" of the Rev. Richard Jones, Professor of History and Political Economy at Haileybury College; and delivered a series of lectures on 66 the science of the production, distribution and public use of wealth" in the presence and for the instruction of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales. He was the editor likewise of the "De Jure Belli" of Hugo Grotius, in which the Latin text was accompanied by an abridged translation (1853). An article of his on "Greek Mathematics" appeared in the "Encyclopædia Metropolitana;" he was, besides, an extensive contributor to the Transactions of various learned societies, and to the reviews and periodicals. We have no note of these wide-spread evidences of his industry and thoughtfulness, but we can scarcely avoid mentioning his latest published contribution, which appeared in Macmillan's Magazine for March, in which he expresses the opinion that "M. Comte and his positive philosophy" are "quite unworthy to be made the serious subject of discussion among philosophers." We note in it the warm praise and friendly eulogy he bestows on his ablest opponent, J. S. Mill, and intimates his respect for his most harassing and pertinacious critic, G. H. Lewes. This paper appeared while he lay on his death-bed, and it was fitting that words of peace should be uttered by him before the great peace of death settled upon his spirit. The paper

1866.

S

is at once magnanimous and valuable. It was scarcely read by us, when we heard that the master of Trinity had "passed over to the majority" and was gone.

In 1841 he married Cordelia, daughter of John Marshall, Esq., Headingley, Leeds, who brought him a considerable fortune; in 1844 he proceeded to the degree of D.D.; in 1854 his wife died, and in memory of her he caused a mortuary chapel to be erected in the cemetery of Cambridge, for which he furnished the design himself. In 1855 he was elected vice-chancellor of the University, and then resigned his professorship of morals into the hands of John Grote, B.D., of Trinity, brother of the famous historian of Greece. In 1858 he married Everina F. Ellis, widow of Sir G. Affleck, and sister of the late Mr. Leslie Ellis, of Trinity, one of the editors of Bacon. She died in 1865; and one of his most famous pulpit discourses was delivered shortly after her demise on the "Lessons of Death." He had long felt on that subject an inscrutable interest. This is seen especially in his notes on Plato's "Phædo." We know now for a fact, that, stately as was his carriage, and healthy as he seemed, Death had been using his insidious preparatives on him; his pulse was fluctuating and low, his brain had less vitality in it, and age was beginning to give him premonitions of the grave. Alas, the end came sadly and suddenly! By an accident met with while riding near Trumpington Bridge, Cambridge, 24th February, he was seriously injured in body, but more in brain. The result was partial paralysis, semi-consciousness, and at last as the consequence of irremediable lesions and extravasation of blood,—death, which took place at Trinity Lodge on 6th March, shortly before 5 p.m., as was announced by the tolling of Trinity Chapel bell. Grief overclouded Cambridge at the news. He was interred on the 10th of March, in the presence of a large concourse of mourners, in the centre of the ante-chapel of Trinity College, at the express desire of the Seniors-the grave being most appropriately chosen as lying midway between the statue of Bacon at one end and those of Newton and Barrow at the other. The shield on the coffin bore the master's well-known and well-chosen motto from Lucretius, Lampada Tradam," "I shall hand over the torch." Suitable words for him in life, and fitting too to indicate his death to earth, and the passage of his spirit into the presence of Him of whom we can say, "Justice and judgment are the habitation of His throne, mercy and truth go before His face."

66

So passed away one of the ornaments of British science, literature, and divinity-the Leibnitz of modern times; a man as versatile as, but far more solid than, Brougham, the scientific Macaulay of discovery, and the Bacon of modern induction. He was a great, good, and wise thinker, whose life contains a lesson of noble progress, and whose works are likely to survive some of his more popular contemporaries. In our age few men have done more with less help, and been greater despite of obstacles, or risen higher from so lowly a condition. Science may well mourn the loss of the Master of Trinity, and Trinity the loss of its Admirable Crichton. S. N..

Religion.

IS THE OFFERTORY PREFERABLE TO THE PEW-RENT SYSTEM IN OUR CHURCHES?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III.

WHILE supporting the principle of the offertory, I do not intend to denounce the pew-rent system as unworthy of any application whatever; for I think that if instead of decrying everything connected with systems other than those espoused by ourselves, we were willing to modify our ideas, and blend them so as to render them applicable, each where they would be productive of most good, we should attain our ends much more advantageously, and with fewer and slighter feelings of animosity than we invariably display in holding these two systems in direct antagonism to each other. I disagree with R. S. when he says the pew-rent system and the offertory ought to be considered as having two distinct objects. I think the supporters of each system seek to attain the same object, but are at variance merely as to which is the preferable means of obtaining that object.

I shall first direct my attention to the subject in connection with parish churches, where I think the evil of the pew system is seen most glaringly. Let us look at the history of the question for a moment. Some 500 years and more ago certain godly men built upon their lands and parishes churches for the use of those people who lived upon those lands; not only did they do this, but they also gave up part of their substance for the support of a clergyman to minister to their spiritual wants, and so these churches were handed down for years after the Reformation from one generation to another as the rightful heritage of the people. Early in the seventeenth century the principle of these churches began to be abused, the more important and affluent began to enclose spaces for their own particular use, until at length the whole area of the church became enclosed spaces for the convenience of certain families, and, ever since, the wealthy have occupied exclusively those churches which were originally intended for the common use of all and sundry, and which lawfully are public property, in which every parishioner has an absolute right to the free use of sitting in his parish church. Then in these parish churches at least, the offertory is preferable to the pew system, for while the one is legal the other is absolutely illegal, and an entire misappropriation of an ancient and rightful inheritance.

As regards the application of the offertory in other or private churches, I think we should be sufficiently liberal in our opinions to allow any number of Christian people who like (after contributing to the maintenance of the parish church or churches) to build a church for their own special convenience, to allow them to distribute the accommodation as they think proper. Let us or any who do not coincide with them in their opinions as to how the accommodation should be arranged, endeavour to prove to them by fact and argument that our system-the open church system-is superior to their pewed principle; if they decline to accept our ideas, then allow them to hold their own upon their own principles.

66

Arnold" attempts, but I think in vain, to overthrow the offertory upon the ground of indecency, and after telling us it would make our ministers "eleemosynaries," a "begging fraternity," place them beyond the "pale of means of obtaining a livelihood," and commit a host of other injustices towards them, as well as making God's house a " den of thieves," and a "den of indecency," winds up by telling us the pew system is the right system, quite forgetting to substantiate any of his assertions by a single instance of proof. Such illogical arguments as Arnold's' very imperfectly demonstrate the correctness of the conclusions at which he has arrived upon this question.

I will now briefly endeavour to show that the offertory is preferable to the pew system: first, as regards its connection with the people; and secondly, as a means of ecclesiastical finance (believ ing, as does R. S., that "as a Christian institution it remains impregnable")..

I presume we all acknowledge the duty of public worship; then to what extent is there proper accommodation provided for that purpose? Taking the average of our churches, certainly not more than one-fourth of the sittings are reserved for the labouring classes, though they comprise more than three-fourths of the entire population of the country. Is this state of things right? are the souls of the few well-to-do people of more value than those of the myriads of poor people? are the rich, with all their means of home worship (great and invaluable means not possessed by the poor people), to monopolize the accommodation for public worship? But it is said the poor do not accept the means already provided; when the seats now in use for them are filled it will be time enough to talk of increasing their sittings, and opening the churches; but while the sittings of the poor yet industrious classes hold their present distinction, the independence of English artisans is too great, their feelings regarding their rights are too active, to accept a position where each is classed as a pauper, though willing and able to contribute his mite as readily as the banker or the lawyer, and with as little shamefacedness as either, knowing that what he gives is honestly earned, and remembering "that this poor widow hath cast more in than all they which have cast into the treasury.' The offertory must prevent this inconsistency, and tend to draw the

"

people within the pale of the church, instead of (as the pew system certainly does) driving them from her.

Now as a means of church finance, no law can be laid down regulating a regular and certain flow into the treasury by means of the offertory any more than we can be certain of a regular supply derivable from pew-rents; experience and practice must inform us in that consideration. So far it is sufficient to say that where the offertory has been substituted for pew-rents the amounts collected have not only been equal to, but in most instances have exceeded the amounts gained previously.

I will close by just adding two reasons (extracted from Mr. Hereford's evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords on the deficiency of the means of spiritual instruction) why the amounts derived from the offertory will be larger than those obtained from pew-rents-1st, because the pew system limits the clergyman's support to a small number of families able and willing to undertake beforehand the payment of a stated sum, whereas the church's system calls upon every one to give, and no one, if properly taught, can refuse to give something to that support; 2nd, because of those who pay pew-rents, none it may be assumed pay more than they can afford, whereas it is plain many rich pay for the space they occupy less than they could or ought to pay. D. M.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.III.

We all believe in and admire Christianity. We look upon it as the noblest and grandest institution ever given to mankind, not only for their spiritual welfare, but also for their intellectual and moral development. Every person is invited to taste the sweets of the gospel, enjoy its consolations, and reap its reward. And with a view to effect this specific end the gospel is declared to be given freely to every one who asks earnestly to partake of it. For its proper dissemination it must have teachers and preachers to promulgate its principles, that it may be rightly explained to and received by the people. Now the question with which we have to deal is the mode of remunerating these instructors,-whether it should be voluntary, as the offertory, or compulsory, as in the pewrent system. But the tenets of Scripture are applicable to all classes alike in every clime, having for their object the salvation of immortal souls. The gospel is liberal and charitable-it has a deep, broad, and kindly-hearted spirit. This will not be disputed. But a comparison of the manner in which individuals were recommended to give of their effects in apostolic times to those adopted in our own is quite irrelevant to this question. It depends greatly upon the constitution of the society where it has its existence. Apostolic times were quite different in their forms of society from the present. Besides, Christianity was not then recognized either as a public or national institution. And we know from scriptural testimony that in those days Christians were persecuted, and consequently never had public places of worship for the internal accommodation