religious teachers.* The instances of laymen entering the ministry without any previous theological training are extremely rare: the present writer is only acquainted with one instance. J. N.'s idea of education doing away with differences of opinion provokes a smile. No; sink men to a common level of ignorance, teach them to submit and be governed by synods or bishops, give them Confessions of Faith as an epitome of Bible truths much simpler and safer than the Bible itself, and then we may expect appa rent unanimity. Multitudes will rally round a flag and swear by its colour, though the better half of them cannot even read the motto it bears. The stagnant pool may be dark and noiseless; but a living stream must ripple to the breeze, and sparkle in the sunbeam.

66

We can only notice one other specimen of J. N.'s reasoning. Congregationalism," he says, "is an infraction of common sense," for "each little village might with as much propriety insist upon" perfect freedom. Is he not aware that self-government is the mainspring of English freedom? What would he think of every village grievance being carried successively to four different houses of Parliament, composed of different proportions of ruling elders and presbyters, in the shape of village constables and local magistrates, each House sitting as a Court of Review and Appeal from those below it? What a fearful bureaucracy would Civil Presbyterianism make! But we appeal from J. N.'s secularism to the teachings of Christ,

*Of theological colleges belonging to the Iudependent and Baptist Churches alone, no less than ten immediately occur to us: New College, London; Western College, Plymouth Bristol; Stepney; Cheshunt; Lancashire; Airedale; Rotherham; Horton; and Spring Hill. The powerful mind of Bishop Butler received its bent and training in a Dissenting academy.

who quoted the analogy of civil government, and of princes who "exercise dominion and authority;" and added, "but it shall NOT be SO AMONG YOU."

We now close our remarks. The simplicity and unity of our plan are obvious: our arguments are drawn from principles. On the other hand, our opponents wander about, reiterating mere casual objections, arguing on grounds of worldly policy, building & whole system (like an inverted cone) upon a single narrative, or miserably contending for minute distinctions between episcopi and presbyteri. Petty verbal criticism the foundation on which expediency, policy, and the hankering after worldly "systems" and governments," so pointedly condemned by Christ, have built a Presbyterian Church of Scotland, a Free Church, a Secession Church, an Episcopal Church of England, a Lutheran Church, a Moravian Church, a Greek Church, and a Latin Church-as so many "middle walls of partition" in Christ's kingdom.

A calm consideration of the spiritual nature of the worship of the Father of Lights and God of Love, and an examination of the spirit inculcated by apostles, and manifested by Christ-a belief that Christianity is a hidden life within the soul, and not a secular organization of nominal believers,—these are the foundations on which, in every clime Congregational Churches of Christ "stand fast in the liberty wherewith He hath made them free." Our opponents institute Courts and Bishops, Creeds and Confessions, by which to bind their members into apparent unity: we look to Him who promised that there should eventually be but "one fold and one shepherd;" to Him who prayed, not for his apostles "alone, but for them also which should believe on him through their word. that they all may be one:"-we seek in Charity "the bond of perfectness." B. S.

shell, the subject requires but a solitary syllogism:-"What belongs to the nation should not be confined to a portion only: the universities belong to the nation; therefore, the universities ought not to be confined to a portion only of the nation." But let us examine the question more closely, in order to avoid all cavilling. We have a National Church in this country, as well as National Universities. Now, what is the object of a National Church? Surely to care for the religious education of the people. What, then, is the object of National Universities? They cannot be to teach religion, for that would be to invade the province of the Church; they can, therefore, have no other object than the secular instruction of the community. The Church is to further the cause of religion, the Universities the cause of science; the one must train the moral being, the other the intellect of the nation. Now, to a certain extent, the Church does fulfil her duties, and act up to her station; but the Universities fail to accomplish their own end. The Church opens her temples to all; the Dissenter may join in her ministrations of praise and prayer, and may listen to the instructions her pulpits afford, whenever he chooses, and without in any way compromising his own opinions, or assenting to her doctrines: of course she is not to blame if he eventually rejects her creed, and absents himself from her worship; she has acted her part, and the only question that can arise is, whether a State Church is in harmony with the scripture, and conducive to the national welfare? The Universities, however, take an opposite course; they refuse to impart secular training until the student has signed articles of divinity! We might as reasonably expect to be called upon to sign an abjuration of republicanism, or to express our disbelief in homoeopathy or astrology before being allowed to enter Westminster Abbey, as suppose that a belief in certain doctrines of theology was to decide a man's right to instruction in the differential calculus. The law of the land declares the right of every man to enter his parish church, and listen to the vicar's sermon, if there be room for him; surely it has an equal right to open the universities to every man able and willing to pay the necessary expenses. If the universities are national property, Parliament is bound to see them freed from

party bonds, and to put an end to such an absurd anomaly as the refusal to allow a man to enter a national class-room of mathematical learning, and there listen to the Savilian Professor of Geometry, unless he first swears to the doctrines of the Athanasian Creed. The libraries and lectures of Oxford and Cainbridge ought to be as free and unsectarian as the aisles and benches of Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's. Tell us not of " prescription," and that the subscription to articles is an ancient rule. We are not to be bound by all the whims of our great-grandfathers;—we acknowledge not the infallibility of a persecuting Laud;*we allow not the divine right of straightlaced, dim-lighted antiquity to fetter down and darken to its own level the free and brilliant future.

Again, I maintain that the universities ought to be freed from the present restrictions, because they are utterly useless, and productive of much evil. The conscientions Dissenter—the man of high principle and tender conscience is shut out, and thus a double injury is done; learning suffers, and her would-be devotees are wronged. On the other hand, the worthless-and the still larger class, the thoughtless-will sign articles, and profess creeds, without attaching the least weight to them; their own moral sensibility will become dulled; the solemnity of the act will be forgotten by the latter, and perjury will brand the souls of the former. Thus these restrictions fail of their end; they must keep out many of the highest moral excellence-they tend to bring religion in disrepute, and to make it the subject of passing jest-and they do not oppose the slightest obstacle to the entrance of the unprincipled and the vicious. Even in regard to the interests of the Church,who is the better companion for her future ministers, the conscientious and religious who differ in some respects from the Estab lished creed, or the unblushing devotee of vice, the thoughtless idler, and the jesuitical prevaricator? I do not mean to cast any reflection on the universities, nor to be uncharitable. I know that there is no rank in life, no sect however strict, no calling how

subscription at Oxford, and modelled the UniverIt was this infamous bigot who introduced sity into its present shape.

ever sacred, but what is defiled and degraded by human vice and human frailty; but I maintain that the restrictions of Oxford and Cambridge tend to increase these natural evils. The Infidel would feel justified in entering the colleges, unless possessed of a remarkably fine sense of morality, the pious Nonconformist dare not put his hand to a faith he cannot hold.

The article of F. J. L. can scarcely be said to touch the real subject at issue. In p. 302 he argues, with his usual ignorance or hatred of facts, that the Voluntary system is inefficient. Now, in the fifty years, 1801-51, there were built 2,529 churches, at a cost of £9,078,000, of which Government contributed £1,663,429, and private benevolence £7,423,571; in other words, within the pale of the Church itself the Voluntary system is four and a half times as efficient as State aid. Again, in the same period of time, 16,689 chapels have been opened by Dissenters; estimating the cost at about £900 each (and curious places they would be, if they cost no more), we have an outlay of nearly £15,000,000. Adding to this sum the £7,423,571 raised in the Church, we find that the Voluntary system is above thirteen-fold as efficient as the State system. These figures from the late Census may form a commentary on the words of

F. J. L.-"The Voluntary system has proved utterly inefficient"!

The arguments on "prescriptive usage" amount to nothing. Prescription must date back to the time of Richard I. by the rules of common law; whereas the universities have only been held by the present Church of England for about 300 years. Moreover, the exclusion of Dissenters only dates from the time of Laud; so that as a custom it is invalid;-as a statute confirmed by Parliament it is now subject to be abolished by Parliament.

Lastly, F. J. L. informs us that the chief endowments are of late date. Does he suppose that those who founded chairs of botany and medicine, at a time when Dissenters were few in number, ever contemplated confining their pet sciences to the Church of England, when it had lost its hold on the nation? These endowments were given to the universities as national schools-the only seats of learning in those days. Surely, if the theology of Edward VI. is to be taught to the student of natural philosophy, because the founder of the chair believed in it, we ought to banish Bacon and reinstate Aristotle, forbid chemistry and reintroduce alchemy. If the philosophy may be changed, surely the interference with individual belief may be made to cease. B. S.

WE have read with considerable interest, mingled with some surprise, the opening articles on the question of the admittance of Dissenters into our Universities. The arguments which have been advanced on the negative are certainly very good, and we shall be curious to see the answers which they no doubt will produce; but as to those on the affirmative, they have excited in us considerable pity, not through any feelings of self-esteem or imagining that we could reason more successfully, but that a rational person like "Rolla" should base views of such importance and influence, on foundations so insecure and shallow. Now, to avoid making this assertion seem to our opponent as groundless, as his does to us, we shall enter into an analysis of the statements which he has made, and endeavour, with truthfulness and impartiality, to lay clearly before him, and those who have adopted similar opinions, the fallacies of which he is guilty.

Previous to this, however, it may be well just to notice the singular tactics and bad generalship which "Rolla" has exhibited. He takes particular care, and shows the utmost anxiety, deeply to impress on our minds the fact that he is "an inveterate foe to all State-churchism, as well as to priestcraft and injustice of every kind." Now we cannot imagine what object he could have had in doing this, except to excite the prejudices of those members of the Established Church who may chance to read his article, and thus, at one blow, check any feeling they might entertain in favour of his party. This method of declaring his views is as worthy as perhaps the principles themselves are in the estimation of Dissenters. But both are rejected by the Church of England. She neither endeavours to kindle enmity nor arouse discontent against herself, nor has she such sentiments of acrimonious hatred against those, who, while they differ in a few forms and outward

rites, agree with her in all the grand truths of Christianity, thus nobly exhibiting a marked distinction between herself and that spirit of intolerant opposition to liberty which "Rolla" (and in him, alas! a considerable number of Dissenters) has so deliberately announced, and so fiercely displayed.

We are informed at the outset of "Rolla's" article (in an unfinished sentence, by the way!) that no one can gainsay the fact that Dissenters are at present excluded from the universities. To this we are happy to give our cordial and entire assent. But that they are thrown open to the "minions of aristocracy" is an exaggeration which those who see double are often liable to commit. We know of persons who have been and still are students there, who certainly do not belong to this imaginary class, and no doubt many of our readers could say the same. Our opponent, however, being excluded, is probably not very accurately acquainted with the state of affairs there; and consequently we will do him the kindness of not attaching too much weight to his assertion, but rather attribute it to his creative powers and poetic fire, as we have also to do in the case of the following proposition, that the members of the universities, as a class, are men of "infidel opinions;" for it is a well known fact they are not infidels, but Christians, at least by profession, and therefore as much as any man can be a judge of. No doubt, the younger students do not, as a whole, possess the strictest morality; and no such body of young men can claim this; but did they acquire this laxity of principle from the universities? Surely not. They have merely brought there that which they have else where acquired. The universities do all they can under the present system to restrain and direct them into the path of duty, and therefore we are compelled to deny unreservedly the propositions which "Rolla" has so dogmatically laid down, and of course the two following deductions which he has drawn from them:-1st, That the exclusion of Dissenters is productive of enormous evil; 2nd, That their admission would be productive of enormous good.

Were we to grant these assumptions, we should be at the same time conceding that Dissenters are necessary to the well-being, morality, and religious state of our universities; and, on the same principle, to the well

being, morality, and religious state of all such communities. No doubt "Rolla" and his partizans would rejoice at such an acknowledgment. Then, indeed, they would have a plausible reason for proclaiming hostility to the Church of England. Then they might make their whispers about the inutility of her forms, and of her government. But such a time has not yet come. The Established Church has better securities than these. She does not look for soldiers to the ranks of dissent and puritanism. No! she turns to her universities-those fortresses of Christianity- and from thence recruits her armies with men zealous for her rights, her doctrines, and her system of order and discipline.

In addition to "Rolla's" wonderful thesis, he has given us a few particular arguments, by way of support to the latter of them. These arguments he has divided into three parts, which we shall consider in his own order: :- - 1st. The universities would be greatly reformed by a general opening to all religious sects. The reason for this is, that they would be exposed to the public eye, and be influenced by Dissenters. After this, we need scarcely add, comes a choice collection of abuses, said to be at present existing in our universities, all singled out with the utmost care and attention. Now, if "Rolla" really knows as much of the universities as he pretends to do, surely they could not be better known than they are. Certainly their condition could be little worse than he describes it, and the only advantage, therefore, that he could derive by having them made more public would be, that it might be seen that the colours with which he had painted his picture were too bright, and required a considerable amount of softening before they approach to the reality. The same remark will apply to his next statement-that "the universities would become real national benefits, inasmuch as they would then be restored to their primitive design." Surely, there is no vis consequentia in this. For what was their primitive design? Was it to teach everything but religion and theology? If so, then they would have ceased to be universities. And if religion was to be taught, was it in the dissenting form? Clearly not, for they were erected by those who belonged to the church established at that time in England (i. ., either the Church of Rome