For this reason, you ought to multiply the abovementioned sum of £273,106. 18s. 31d. by 12, which will give you the real value at this day, (1717,) amounting to the sum of £3,277,282. 19s. 6s. Now; although this may appear to be an almost incredible sum, yet we are not to imagine, that it was the only income of these religious houses; for it was only the reserved rent of their manors, and the yearly produce of their demesnes, with- | out computing fines, herriots, renewals, deodands, &c. which would have amounted, perhaps, to twice as much. But, to be more exact in our calculations, let us, from this yearly income of the monastic houses, deduct a sixth part for demesnes, and then the remainder will be merely their reserved rents. If, therefore, from £3,277,282.19s. 6d. you subtract £546,213. 6s. 7d. there will remain for their rent, £2,731,069. 12s. 11d. Now, the reserved rent being, in all church tenures, at least a fifth part of the estate, it will follow, that the lands which the monks had out upon lives, amounted in all to the sum of £13,655,345. 4s. 7d.; and if to this you add their demesnes, we may fairly affirm, that the whole land, which the monks were lords of, came to £14,101,558. 11s. 2d. How great a *The wages of a haymaker in the reign of Henry VII. was settled at 1d. and in the reign of Henry VIII. never exceeded 11⁄2d.; whereas, 12d. now is their lowest daily hire. Vid. Stat. 11 Henry VII. and Stat. 6 Henry VIII. concerning artificers. + We have no direct accounts of the price of corn in Henry VIIIth's time; but we may suppose it the same as it was in that of his predecessor and successor. In the second year of Henry VII. wheat was sold at 3s. the quarter; in his seventh year, when a terrible dearth happened, it did not rise to above 20d. the bushel; and in his 10th and 15th years, was sold for 4s. per quarter. In the reigu of Queen Mary, unless in time of famine, wheat was commonly sold for 5s. the quarter part of our land this must be, may be learnt from the following calculation. The land-tax is paid so unequally, that it is only nominally 4s. in the pound. For though, in the midland counties, this is kept up with rigour, yet, in the north and in the west, in many districts, only one and a half, in others two, but in almost no place above two and a half is paid (in 1717). We may, therefore, fairly affirm, that when the land-tax is assessed for four, it brings in but full two shillings in the pound, or the tenth part of the income of our estates, reckoning one place with another. The land-tax (1717) is supposed, one year with another, to bring in two millions, and this may be accounted, when multiplied by ten, to be the value of all the lands in England, which is twenty millions per annum ;‡ of which only £14,101,558. 11s. 2d. was dependent on our poor and humble clergy; which is, in other words, that the monks were masters of above fourteen parts out of twenty of the whole kingdom! And out of the six parts which were thus kindly left dependent on king, lords, and commons, were the four numerous orders of mendicants to be maintained, against whom no gate could be shut, to whom no provision could be denied, and from whom no secret could be concealed. If this calculation should appear greater than what the reader can easily give credit to, I must advise him to look into Popish countries, where he will discover, that their clergy are to the full, as rich in proportion as ever ours were here: a flagrant instance of which, we have from a calculation taken by the great Duke of Tuscany himself, in his own dominions, wherein the priesthood were found to enjoy seventeen in London, and 4s. per quarter in the country. So we may fairly compute the price of wheat in Henry VIII.th's time to have been 4s. per quarter, which, multiplied by 12, amounts to £2. 8s. which is but a reasonable price for wheat at this day.-Vid. Baker's Chron.; Vit. Hen. VII. and Queen Mary I. Gregory King's Calculations, published by Dr. Davenant, compute the whole rent of lands in England to be but fourteen millions; and Sir Wm. Petty's calculations, which were much older, do only compute them at eight millions a year. The latter of these wrote in the reign of Charles II. and the former in the reign of King William. The difference may be attributed to the increase of trade. parts in twenty of the whole land; | would atone for a multitude of sins, which, had it not been for that seasonable statute of Mortmain, they would soon have possessed here. The reader will, no doubt, be curious to know, how these spiritual societies came to possess such prodigious temporal estates. The first monks we read of, were in the middle of the third century; men whom the persecution of the heathen emperors compelled to live in deserts, and who being, by a long course of solitude, rendered unfit for human society, chose to continue in their monastic way, even after the true cause of it ceased. The example of these men was soon followed by a number of crazy devotees, who were so ignorant of true religion, as to think that their way to heaven lay through wild and uninhabited deserts, and who, finding that they had not charity enough to observe that precept of Christ, of "loving their neighbours as themselves," were resolved to have no neighbours at all; thereby frustrating the design of Christianity, which was, to establish the good of society. The next monks were a set of worthless, but ambitious wretches, who, having no way of making themselves famous in the world, retired out of it; where they reverenced idle ceremonies of their own institution, where they pretended conferences with angels, with the Virgin Mary, and even with God Almighty; not unlike Numa, the high-priest of the heathen Romish Church, who abused the people with stories of his nightly interviews in a cave with the goddess Egeria. At length, these holy cheats, to gain yet more veneration, began to practise on their bodies the most cruel severities, till, at last, they were worshipped by the thoughtless mob as saints: imitating, in some measure, the example of that heathen monk, Empedocles, who, to be thought a god, leapt into the burning mount Etna. After this, designing men, who saw how great an influence these pretended saints had over mankind, took upon themselves the same exterior form of godliness, thereby not only to raise an empty name, as the former had done, but to enrich themselves at the expense of the deluded multitude. From hence flowed those many profitable religious maxims:-"That, to give to the Church, was charity towards God, and, as such, were they ever so heinous :-that the Church was not the congregation of the faithful, as St. Paul fancied it to be, but the body of the priests:—that the priest, though ever so like the devil, was God's representative, and ought to be honoured as such:-that there was such a place as purgatory, and that the prayers of monks (like Orpheus's harp) were the only music that could mollify the tyrant of that place, who, being their very good friend, would release a poor soul at any time for their sake:-that* whispering all secrets in the ear of a priest, was the only cure for a sick soul:that every priest had a power of pardoning all sins, except those only which were committed against himself:-that indulgences purchased in fee, could entitle a man and his heirs to merit heaven by sinning:—and, lastly, that the priest could, by virtue of a hocus pocus, quit scores with his Creator, by creating him." These, and such like money-catching tenets, soon drew the whole wealth of the laity into the hands of these contemners of the world, and all its pomps and vanities; who not only flourished in Egypt and Italy, where they first sprang up, but were spread through all Christendom, and began quickly to vie in power and riches with the greatest monarchs, even in their own territories, till, at last, kings and princes themselves were proud of becoming monks and abbots. [To be continued.] Strictures on W. P. B.'s Review of Mr. Sutcliffe's Grammar, as published in the Imperial Magazine for December, 1819, and January, 1820. By the Author. WHEN a work has been printed five years, and is now out of print, the Author was somewhat surprised to see a review so long deferred. He was equally surprised, after replacing 18 cancelled pages, as much to introduce improvements, as to correct errors, of which the reviewer was fully apprised, that no particular, but only a general reference, was made to those pages. However, on seeing the title, he ex pected to find liberal criticisms, and errors corrected by learned opinion. Instead of these, he finds epithets, quite irrelevant to the points in dispute, such as, "notoriously erroneous —insufferable—insufferable ignorance -palpably false-style inelegant and unclassical inaccurate and ungrammatical," &c. Twelve lines are bestowed in correcting is for are, which a learned reviewer would have corrected by placing the right verb in brackets. In the outset, Mr. Sutcliffe is charged with "being glad, and even eager, to catch at every opportunity of opposing and censuring Mr. Murray." Mr. S. has differed in four points only from Mr. M. and these are all from other authors; whereas, in Mr. Grant's Grammar, about forty opinions of Mr. Murray are combated. Mr. B. says, that Mr. S.'s publication is a work of some merit; and that it contains several things curious, useful, and important, we do not deny.' But why are not those useful things pointed out? The categorical character of this review, in common justice, seems to require a fair display of excellencies and of faults. friend's," a double genitive. 4. Dr. Crombie also calls the following example a double genitive; " A kinsman of the traitor's waited on him yesterday." 5. "The genitive case is formed either by the preposition of before it, or by s after it, with an apostrophe; as, The picture of my mother;' My father's house.""--John Walker's Gram. p. 10. 6. "It is generally observed! that the Saxon or English genitive, as 'the king's crown,' is convertible into the Norman or analytic genitive; as, 'the crown of the king."-Grant's Gram. p. 173. 7. "The relation of one substantive to another is expressed by a genitive; as, The fall of man;' Order is heaven's first law.""-Rev. Mr. Fleming's Gram. p. 70. These seven examples are quite sufficient to prove, that Mr. S. has strictly adhered to the general phraseology of the best grammarians. The Page 37.-" Ship-mate," &c. point of double adjectives Mr. B. decides at once: but Lowth, page 120, says, "The substantive becomes an adjective, or supplies its place; as, seawater; land-tortoise; forest-trees." He scruples to call them adjectives. 13 Grammar, page 36.-" It is impro- Page 42. Exax150τEpw. Mr. S. gives per to call of kingdom, the genitive the illustration of that word from Erascase; for though such expressions would mus's Annotations on Eph. iii. 8. Combe the genitive in Latin or Greek, they parativus ex superlativo formatus, quacertainly are not so in English. Of is si dicat, infimiori-A comparative a preposition, and kingdom, not a formed of the superlative, as if he genitive, but the objective case." It should say, lower than the lowest. But is asked in reply, Where are Mr. B.'s Dr. Doddridge having declared that authorities for these strong expres- the apostle here created a word, and sions? Why does he say, such ex- that he was dissatisfied with any transpressions," when there is but one ex-lation he had seen, Mr. S. ventured to pression? Why does he put the Latin contrast this descending, with the asbefore the Greek by the disjunctive cending superlative, frequent in the or, when it should be, Greek and Latin? Psalms, "The most highest." Where, -As the genitive is a point of interest | then, is the great harm? to the reader, recourse must be had to Page 62.We have enough." Mr. learned opinion. "Son of Peter; son S. deems this an imperfect sentence, of Man," are written in one surname though given as perfect by Mr. Murray. by the Russians-Peterhoff; and by Mr. B. says it is a complete sentence, the Germans, in Hoffmann. Mr. equivalent to " We possess enough." Horne Tooke defines the former to be It is replied;-Hand the phrase on a "Son of Peter." Mr. Sutcliffe's judg- card to twenty gentlemen, and they ment is, that the preposition and the will stare, and say, "Enough of what?" noun do really form the casus patris, as Answer,-"We have wine enough, if written in one word, just as three money enough, &c." A noun, a verb, words form our one passive voice, "I and an adverb, can never make a peram struck." 2. In Lowth's Grammar, fect sentence, because the accusative is p. 32, we read, "A soldier of the wanting; as wine, money, or goods. king's" here are really two possessives And so is the opinion of the celebrated (genitives], for it means, one of the Mr. Walker, who spent his life in king's soldiers. 3. Dr. Priestley calls teaching elocution. In the 75th page the phrase, "This is a picture of my of his Grammar, he, as well as Mr. S., supplies the accusative thus: "We | Hence the opinion of Horne Tooke is have bread enough for the family;" founded. "I do not allow," he says, "We have laboured enough for this "that any words change their nature day." Take bread and laboured away, in this manner, so as to belong someand Mr. Walker would deem the times to one part of speech, and somephrases incomplete. times to another, from the different use of them. I never could perceive any such fluctuation in any words whatever."-Diversions of Purley. Page 62.—Mr. B. says, “ By admitting, with Mr. Murray, that am is sometimes an auxiliary, and sometimes a principal verb, every difficulty is avoided." It is replied, that every difficulty would be multiplied by a doctrine so totally unfounded. That Being denominated the "I AM," in the Hebrew scriptures, and "EI," on some Grecian temples, can never be an auxiliary to any of his acts expressed by the verb. It is the same with est in the Latin; as, "he is talking;" here, the man who talks cannot be subordinate to his speech; he is rather the soul and author of the discourse. Mr. S. respectfully assures the grammatical reader, that most of the writers on language in Europe have latterly embraced this opinion; and that he has the first honour, (so far as he knows,) to introduce it to the notice of his country. Page 77.-" The coach had came away, &c." Fie! fie! B, to represent me as giving countenance to those London phrases! Read on; read on-"The ladies patronize them every where, and seem, on the whole, as though they would compel the greyheaded grammarians to go home, and alter their books." Here is a pleasant satire on a provincialism; and, by consequence, it is foul play to represent it as sanctioned in the grammar. Page 85.-" Out, far, near, &c." These examples are similar to others in the Hermes of Mr. Harris. Page 99.-" To learn is laudable.” Reply-Many doubt of the propriety of calling the infinitive verb "to learn,' a nominative, from the force of the term. For Mr. B. to substitute a noun, and say, "learning is laudable," is a liberty without example. Richard Johnson, the celebrated commentator on Lilly, doubts also. His words are, "I do not insist merely on this author's calling the infinitive mood the nominative to a verb; since it is the subject of a verb, it must be the name of a thing, for nothing else can be the sub Page 73.-Mr. B. says, "The participles, forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from meat, are not here used, as Mr. S. supposes, instead of the infinitive mood." Where are Mr. B.'s authorities? Macpherson says, "It were better and wiser far to avoid to deceive;" that is, " Avoiding to deceive were better, &c." Pope says, "To enjoy is to obey;" that is, "En-ject of the verb; and, by consequence, joying is to obey." I have other proofs from Mitford's Greece; but these are sufficient. Why, then, should Mr. B. give me this trouble? it is a noun substantive.” P. 256. In further support of the prefix, "For youth to learn is laudable,” we have the opinion of the author of EsIbidem.-" Moanings." Mr. S. sentials of English Grammar; (a genmeant to have said here participial noun, tleman of Oxford.) Combating the a happy term applied to nouns and ad- rule of the Eton Latin Grammar,-Cæjectives, by Du Marsais, in the 563d teri casus manent in passivis, qui fuepage of his Principles of French Gram- runt activorum,-which has led some to mar. "Un officier dit, Les troupes say, that a passive verb governs; he que j'ai' habillées ;-habillées, est un asks, Can manent signify to govern?pur adjectif participe." Participles The words supposed to be governed occur in many situations; as, "The by this rule, are governed, in fact, by swallow twittering from the chimney; words understood. Ex. "Accusaris The opening of Parliament; A land- a me furti." The noun crimine is unscape painting by Wallace; A philoso-doubtedly understood, which would pher thus employed." Now, some govern the genitive case furti." authors say, that they cease to be participles when divested of time. But how can we wholly divest any of the above four participles of time? Can the swallow twitter, or the artist paint, or the infant moan, without time? Page 102.-Case absolute. Mr. B. says, "Some grammarians think that the absolute cases in Latin and Greek are always governed by some preposition understood." Mr. S. has no scruple about admitting the case absolute, of ellipses and expletives. But who are those grammarians? Grammatica Busbeiana, so long the Greek and Latin Grammar of Westminster school, is silent about the case absolute. Thompson's large Greek Grammar is also silent. Dr. Valpy just names it, p. 120, "The sun rising;" from which Mr. B. forms his example, "The sun rising, the shadows disappeared:" and if we touch this example with our little finger, the case absolute will likewise disappear. Thus, "The rising sun dispersed the shadows." Here the rising sun is the nominative to the verb dispersed, and the sentence is regular. except its interference with the syntax | fully consulting the original with the Latin and Saxon, he is confirmed in his opinion, that whom is correct. Such a reading as Mr. B. contends for, would be an ascription of vanity to the Lord, and make him ask, contrary to the sense of the question, "Who am I?" He regards the "I am" as a very peculiar and anomalous expletive, which cannot be reduced to rule without supplying the ellipsis, as Beza has judiciously done, Matt. xvi. 13. Quid dicunt de me homines, qui sum filius hominis? What do men say of me, who am the son of man? or, according to the old Latin version, Quemnam esse me dicunt homines filium hominis? Whom do men affirm me (the son of man) to be?-More need not be added to support the correctness of whom in our present version. Mr. B.'s second example is also very questionable. "Jesus being baptized, and praying, the heavens were opened.' This sentence is complete; there is no ellipsis, Jesus being put absolutely with being baptized and praying." Reply.-Where was Jesus baptized?-In the Jordan. To whom did Jesus pray?-To the Father. Then the sentence is not complete: the two accusatives, Jordan, Father, are wanting. These interferences with ellipses and expletives, probably induced Fleming and others to be silent on the case absolute, which is sanctioned by Lowth, and some others. [To be concluded in our next.] Answer to Query on Select Books. MR. EDITOR, Your's very respectfully, Dec. 29th, 1819. Page 102.-" You was present. You was the person who saw the boy fall." In correcting this error, why does Mr. B. use the plural we to one person? and use it a hundred times in twelve pages? PAYLEY'S Evidences of Christianity. When the professors of colleges be--Septuagint.-Grotius de Veritate gan to use it, they did not surely mean Christianæ Religionis.-Burnet's Pasthat each pupil should so use it, as to toral Care.-Gray's Key to the Old supersede the pronoun I. When re- Testament.-Macknight on the Episviewers use it, they do not publish tles.--Paley's Horæ Paulinæ.-Butler's their name, but, as little great men, Analogy.-Pearson on the Creed.— wisely keep associated in one body, Newton, on the Prophecies.-Pribehind the curtain. deaux's Connection.-Milner's Ecclesiastial History.--The Homilies.Ardnt's True Christianity.--Potter's Grecian Antiquities.-Adam's Roman Antiquities. Lewis' Origines Hebreæ. Page 112.-Any. Mr. S. admits, that this word is joined to plural nouns. Yet, after searching the best AngloSaxon lexicons and glossaries, as also the Glossarium Svue-Gothicum, with the declensions both of an and any, he still thinks, with deference, that the English any, and the French aucun, are derived from an and un, equivalent to Fleury's Manners of the Ancient Israelites.-Witsius's Economy of the Covenants.-Fenelon's Dialogues on Eloquence.-Marsh's Michaelis. Chrysatom on the Priesthood. Mason's Self Knowledge.--Barrow's English Works.-Tillotson's Works. Clarke's Sermons.-Secker's Sermons.-Keach on Scripture Metaphors.--Cave's Primitive Christianity. -Tomline's Elements of Christian E |