In looking at the tables which we leave in our readers' hands, we cannot but cast most wistful glances at the figures that tell us of 20,909 children in Ragged Schools, and 35,303 in those of Workhouses. The Commissioners, we are delighted to see, have no praise for those fearful instruments of proselytism, the Ragged Schools, and they recommend that no further allowance from the parliamentary grant, should be made to them.

(a) These returns are taken from the Census of 1851.

*"Circulars and forms in the Welsh language were issued from the Office of the Education Commission to Calvinistic schools, but the returns were so imperfect that it has been thought advisable to adopt the numbers of the census returns."-p. 80-1.

Collegiate and superior or

richer Endowed Schools (a). 560 32,000 3,000 35,000 62.5

(a) Taken from the Census of 1851.

(b) Not including ships' schools.

(c) Not including regimental schools.

*This number of Church of England Evening Schools is estimated. The number of Evening scholars in England and Wales

"The following table gives similar information with respect to Sunday Schools:

was absolutely ascertained by the National Society; but the number of departments or schools was not ascertained; in order, however, to find it with proximate accuracy, the proportion of evening scholars to each evening school existing in the ten specimen districts has been applied to the ascertained number, 54,157.”

"The numbers of the Calvinistic Methodist schools and scholars have been taken from the Census Returns of 1851. Circulars and forms in the Welsh language were issued from the Office of the Education Commission; but the Returns were so imperfect that it has been thought advisable to adopt the numbers of the Census Returns."-p. 81-2.

ART. III.-Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church. By Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D.D., Regius Professor in the University of Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church. London: John Murray, 1861.

PROFESSOR STANLEY would be sorely puzzled to write his own biography. A profound artist of men and manners, a graphic delineator of the dress which nature puts on in her different latitudes, and of the gorgeous colours-the grim or sombre features-that distinguish it enough of a philosopher to be able to dive below the surface of events, and to bring to light their hidden connexion or unlooked for parallelism, he would still be at a loss to paint his own portrait, either sober like Raphael, or intoxicated (allegorically, that is) like Fuller. He may have not yet realized his own principles-perhaps indeed he has not yet come to the end of them. Possibly be has never yet looked at them in one group, weighed the force, calculated the proportions, estimated the bearings of each abstractedly, and so determined what their relative effects should be amongst themselves, and upon the whole man. Possibly he may not yet have come to his full growth either as a thinker or a writer; and his instincts tell him that he is daily taking up new matter into his intellectual system, which is to become part of his being. If the venerable Lord Lyndhurst, brought into accidental connexion with the works of St. Augustine, at the close of his long legal and parliamentary career, could be roused into a glowing eulogy of the talents and acquirements of that distinguished Father, with whom he had only then for the first time made acquaintance: what are the effects likely to be produced in a clerical_professor, with the rare candour and high-mindedness of Dr. Stanley, who, in the prime of his faculties, and in virtue of his office, is just entering upon a career of study, which, if conscientiously pursued-as it assuredly will be by him-will oblige him to throw himself into the feelings and actions of the saints and martyrs of antiquity, and to live in the writings of SS. Athanasius and Augustine, of SS. Bernard and Thomas Aquinas? Does Dr. Stanley, in his heart, expect to learn nothing from communion with minds like these? And when he has become fully conscious of the actual obliga

tions of Christendom, past and present, to these its successive champions, its guardians, its interpreters, will he acknowledge in them no more moral weight or value than that of the mere historical witness: no more authority in all that concerns religion, than he is willing to attribute to the mere popular divine, or philosopher, or historian, or public character, of all ages? Will he decide that those who have lived and died for Christ exclusively, are to be deemed to know Christ no better, than those who have merely lived for themselves: that those who have made Christianity their exclusive study and rule of life, are to be supposed no better judges of its genius, its interests, its requirements, than those who have occupied their whole lives in the pursuit of physical science, or of the laws which govern man in his individual or social state? decide that popular instincts avail everything for and Will he against social institutions, but are never to be taken into account, where religion might cite their testimony; that the political yearnings and cravings of the masses are to be studied, sympathized with, and eventually satisfied, as founded in reason; while their religious aspirations are to be spurned as so many fond superstitions? Will the popular doctrine, Vox populi, vox Dei,' be without meaning for Professor Stanley, in explaining religious phenomena, whether past or present?

We will not anticipate what time-what each successive volume-will unfold, let it suffice to have observed that the proverb, "noscitur a sociis," affords no guarantee for the future in partnerships of intellect. Arnold, Whately, Newman, and Keble, were once associates; Lacordaire, Montalembert, and Lamennais were fellow-workers. ProReviews, or at least of two papers-perhaps the most imporfessor Stanley has appeared on behalf of Essays and

tant-in that now world-wide series. But a subtle intellect, like that of Professor Jowett, and a practical intellect like that of Dr. Temple, and the warm heart and vivid imagination of Dr. Stanley, will sooner or latter experience their points of divergence. They cannot long be companions in the same train of thought; they cannot weigh men tance to events, observances, or speculative principles. in the same balance; they cannot attach the same imporOne revolution made Fox and Burke the closest of friends, another rent them asunder as the poles. allow ourselves to be drawn into prophecy, still less into

But we must not