stances of our time, labouring as society is under the evils (excitement and superficiality, either producing the other, and both unfavourable to sober judgment and a calm estimate of things,) resulting from a too sudden diffusion of knowledge among the lower orders. In proportion (observes he) as every class of society advances in secular knowledge do they need a balance of increased religious knowledge, which cannot be without an enlargement of knowledge on the part of their spiritual instructors. Hence he evinces the absolute necessity for a regular clerical education; and then considers the mode of providing it; contrasts the English and the German systems of education; pointing out the advantages and the defects inherent in each, and showing, from the very nature of the deficiencies respectively found in each, that a union of the two systems would form the most perfect system that could be devised. "As it is (observes he) the Germans have sacrificed the preparatory branch of University Education, we the professional; they have a complete scheme of theological instruction for students unprepared to receive it; we have an admirable preparatory education, but no suitable system engrafted upon it." He then points out the peculiar advantages of Cathedral Institutions for educating the clergy; and shows in what other ways they have been, and may be, serviceable; whether as places in which able men might prepare for the higher and more responsible duties of the Church; or, as giving opportunity and leisure for the equally laborious, though less active, duties of a LEARNED CLERGY-or, again, as furnishing a maintenance for other offices, in themselves inadequately provided for-or lastly, as holding forth an incentive to higher theological attainment, and acting as an encouragement to laborious theological exertion, and thereby (not that this should be understood as holding out a sordid prospect of gain by advancement, but as securing to those who engage in these labours, the means of persevering in them) opening a field for exertions of this sort; and guaranteeing, as far as any thing human can, that the labours thus commenced shall not be in vain; and rendering these pursuits the continued duties and profession of life. The learned Professor then refutes a common but weak argu ment against cathedral institutions, by showing that neither at their original institution, nor at the time of the Reformation, was it intended that the Cathedral Clergy should be, what they have mostly become, a parochial clergy. "The Clergy (he observes) are already too exclusively of one class -we have not sufficient labourers for a field which becomes daily more important; and whose importance they well know who are so anxious to destroy these institutions. Fas est et ab hoste doceri." As to parochial ministers, they are, as he observes, never the Theologians of a Church, and are now, of themselves, insufficient to supply the various and extensive desiderata in theological literature, rendered necessary by the peculiar circumstances of the times; unable to sustain the Gospel against the united attacks of heresy and schism, scepticism and infidelity, (soon to become a half-learned infidelity) latitudinarianism and indifference: a state of things not to be remedied by mere compilations, however skilfully executed-by popular, and consequently superficial, treatises-but by solid, scientific, and (as far as the nature of the subject permits) original works. He then proceeds to show, that almost every considerable accession to our Theology, except on subjects purely practical, has been produced by the Cathedral Clergy; supporting his assertion by a long array of names of which the country itself may be proud. He further maintains, that, although the institutions in question were, during the 18th and part of the 19th century, an evil (an evil for which the Protestant House of Brunswick has much to answer, and owes a deep debt to God and to the Church) grievously abused, by the promotion of unworthy persons, through political influence, yet that we cannot argue against the use from the abuse of any thing; and that it were far wiser to dedicate them anew to the service whereunto they were first appointed, than to destroy them; since, to use the words of Dr. Hacket at the conclusion of his speech before the Long Parliament, in defence of these very institutions, "UPON THE RUIN OF THE REWARDS OF LEARNING NO STRUCTURE CAN BE RAISED UP BUT IGNORANCE: AND UPON THE CHAOS OF IGNORANCE NO STRUCTURE CAN BE BUILT UP BUT PROFANENESS AND CONFUSION." (To be continued.) MONUMENT Recently erected in St. Saviour's Church, Southwark, to the memory of IT has been ever a subject of regret to witness our ancient Churches and Cathedrals defaced with monuments in a style of architecture or decoration entirely at variance with the building which contains them. Whatever claims to admiration the altar or the sarcophagus may possess, they appear discordant and incongruous when introduced into a structure of the Pointed style, so utterly at variance with the detail and principles upon which all designs borrowed from the Roman and Greek architecture, must necessarily be constructed. We have engraved in the present Magazine (Plate I.) a mural monument recently erected in St. Saviour's Church, Southwark, from the design of Robert Wallace, Esq. architect, in which the detail and general effect have been made to harmonize with the architecture of this splendid Church. The situation which it occupies is a spandril immediately beneath the great south window of the transept, recently restored by Mr. Wallace, and the design has been governed by the peculiar spot for which it is intended. The dimensions are large, being 10 feet by 6, and viewed from the opposite extremity of the transept, the monument has a very tasteful and elegant appearance, the filling in of the spandril being in unison with ancient practice, and the detail, selected from ancient examples of great beauty, harmonizes well with the surrounding architecture. The engraving which accompanies this notice, from a drawing obligingly lent by Mr. Wallace, supersedes the necessity of a more minute description beyond the following particulars. The monument is executed in statuary marble. The whole detail is of the period of Henry the Third. The bracket is from Salisbury Cathedral, and the authorities for the other parts chiefly from Westminster Abbey. The hollow moulding of the circular rim or margin has in its upper part Mr. * The lamented death of this gentle. man is noticed in our Obituary, vol. c. .pt. ii. p. 283. GENT. MAG. March, 1833. Harris's motto UBIQUE PATRIAM REMINISCI, in solid marble letters, and the lower part is filled in with the quatrefoil or dogtooth ornament. On the field of the pannel is the following inscription : "Sacred to the memory of JOHN RAWLINSON HARRIS, Esq. of Winchester House, Southwark Bridge Road, M. P. for this Borough, who died the 27th day of August, M.DCCC.XXX. aged 55; and of his sons WILLIAM-QUINCY, who died April 26, 1829, aged 12; GEORGEFREDERICK, who died April 27, 1829, aged 20 months." It is embossed or relieved from the solid marble, and all the lettering is of an early character. The letters are gold, relieved by a ribbon or fillet, forming a back ground to each line, alternately red and blue. The Pelican which surmounts the central stem of the bracket, is Mr. Harris's crest. The shields introduced in the upper part of the design, contain the arms of the deceased and his lady, who survives him. The first shield is Azure, a chevron Ermine, between three hedge-hogs Or, for Harris. The second is Gules, seven mascles conjoined, three, three, and one, Or, for Quincy.† The only circumstance to be regretted is, that the inscription, in consequence of the angle of the monument being above the eye of the spectator, is read with some difficulty; which though it is somewhat obviated by their tasteful colouring of the letters, still it must be confessed a larger character would have been desirable. We have given this design publicity in the hope that it will introduce a new class of monumental sculpture, at least so far as old churches are concerned; and we give Mr. Wallace great credit for the novelty of his ideas. The same attempt has been made in other places, but perhaps in few instances has it been so successful as the present. †These arms are those of the de Quincys, Earls of Winchester. Mr. URBAN, Feb. 12. I HAVE read with much pleasure, as well as instruction, the valuable communications of your correspondent Mr. Barnes. I cannot, however, agree with him in all points; and, much as I object to the indiscriminate and often unasked-for introduction into the Engfish language of foreign words, where we have equivalent ones already, still I doubt whether the compounds, proposed by Mr. Barnes, of pure English words, will ever come into general or even partial use. Many words may, indeed, have been originally wrongly formed, as disfranchise for defranchise, &c. but I do not think the English language will be so easily disfranchised of them as may be supposed. Nor would I, for my own part, have it so; since they have, by custom, become so completely identified with it that I fear any attempt to remodel them would be attended with more evil than good. I may be, possibly, denominated a lingual Conservative; and I must, in that case, plead guilty, as I would much rather object to the removal of a native word because it appears to be of French or Latin extraction, than the reception of a Foreign one. Among other things, I cannot agree with Mr. Barnes' assertion, in your last Supplement number, p. 593, "that we have not a language of our own. To this I beg to reply, that our language is almost all our own, and that as to the words in it which resemble the Latin, French, and Italian ones, they are, for the most part, words which belonged either to the one or the other of the two languages of which the English is the offspring, ages and ages before the name of Latin, French, or Italian, was heard of. The question, then, is simply this--can we be fairly considered to have stolen from other tongues words which, in their primal form, were actually our own as much as they were those of the languages alluded to? To put the matter, however, in the clearest point of view, I will just give my idea of the formation of the English tongue. 1st. then, I think that it is the offspring of the Teutonic and Keltic, though whether the former came to us from Europe or Africa, I will not pretend to say. The language was not, indeed, licked into shape, as now used, until a century or two after the arrival of the Normans, but it existed essentially soon after the departure of the Romans from, if not before their establishment of their power in Britain. 2dly. That the Latin and Gaulish languages were formed from the Teutonic of Germany, engrafted on the Keltic of Italy and Gaul, so that, in point of fact, all three are Teutonico-Keltic, and hence the reason that so many of our English words resemble those of the Latin and French. I am perfectly willing to admit that the Britons retained many Roman words for some time after the Romans took their leave of our island; but I suspect them to have merged almost entirely in the Saxon language, or perhaps to have been quite abandoned as useless. It may not be altogether uninteresting to give a brief genealogy of the English language according to this my view of the subject, and which is as follows. The grandsire of the language I take to be Hebrew, of which the two immediate children were the Egyptian and the Assyrian. The former is the same as the Teutonic or Coptic -the latter as the Phoenician or Keltic. The Keltic came to the British islands (the Cassiterides) as the language of the Phoenician traders, possibly as early as 1300 years A. C. while the Teutonic may have come to us either from Africa or Germany at a period as early, that is, five centuries before the foundation of Carthage, and five and a half before that of Rome. Should the Hindoo MS. relative to Britain, before its Roman era, be found to be authentic, it may tend materially to confirm or weaken my theory. The names of the Isis and the Thame have a decided Teutonic look about them; and as to the latter, it combines the Teutonic mode of writing, in the use of the th, with the Keltic one of pronouncing, as transforming the th into t. The Thames has been considered, by some etymologists, to be formed from Thame and Isis, which is no doubt correct. The omission of the h in Tamasis, shows that the Romans did not always pronounce that letter, and sometimes omitted it altogether, even in words formed from foreign ones in which it existed. Carthago and Cartago may be cited as another example of the same practice. Yours, &c. H. B. |