so far we think just, between that Seminary and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. In them the students are all resident within the walls. Each college is a dulce domum, wherein youth are instructed in religion as in their parents' house. If they be not, their life is without religion. The students in the University of London reside with their parents or their friends, and from them and with them they receive religious lessons, each according to the creed of his fathers. In a college not only open to Dissenters, but where an immense majority of the students are Dissenters -if not, indeed, them all-it is not easy, we confess, to see how any other principle could have been adopted; and that proves how pernicious the same principle would be if adopted in institutions of which the character is the very reverse-the very reverse their reigning spirit. "In a University open to individuals of all religious opinions, it would be impossible," said Lord Brougham, or his accredited friend, " to institute any theological lectures, and still less practicable to introduce any religious observances that would be generally complied with." What said Lord John Russell to that principle, when quoted by Mr Goulburn, in his very sensible and unanswerable speech? Not a word. He gave it the go-by, as if he had been deaf-and no matter had he been dumb too; but his Lordship never gives in his adherence either to his own long if not well-digested opinions, nor yet to any of those opinions of his friends on which, nevertheless, he acts-for the time comes when it is convenient to break off, and then with the utmost nonchalance he lets them drop, like phlegm, out of his mouth and his mind. He expectorates an opinion-wipes his lips, and swallows a lozenge. Lord Brougham, or his accredited friend, judiciously adds, "In the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the students, being removed from the superintendence of their parents and guardians, are placed in colleges or domestic establishments, where it is necessary that religious instruction should form part of the course of education." He was justifying the one principle by justify ing the other-each on its own grounds-and now, shame to the hypocrisy that would thus hide its hidden designs under a mask, the same set of men now declare their own argument to be worthless, and resolve that the system of religious instruction at Oxford and Cambridge shall be the same as in Gower Street-that is, that there shall be none at all. Can there be imagined any thing more basely wicked than this? Yet Professor Sedgwick believes them to be friends not only of religion, but of the Church! Let us turn now to the University of Oxford, and to an exposition of the principles of the system that has so long been happily dominant there, (alas! we fear soon to be broken down,) given in a "Letter" from the Rev. W. Sewell, Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College-a letter full of the highest Christian wisdom, which makes us, while we read, often forget his mere talents, though they are of the highest order. We have a pleasure and a pride in recording in our pages sentiments so noble, views so comprehensive, and reflections so profound; and whatever be the result, Oxford will for ever honour her champion-for, humbly as he speaks of himself, her champion he is-and of that Church over which has long been gathering a cloud, soon to burst either in harmless rain, or in destructive lightning that may smite tower and temple to the dust. The University of Öxford, he observes, at present is essentially and permanently changed from its original constitution. That is indeed most true. By many benign and beautiful processes has a happy reformation been wrought, not only from the times anterior to James the First- of which Professor Sedgwick is so enamoured-but in our own times, and before our own eyes; and it is still going on-for the reformation which intellect, under the guidance and inspiration of Christianity, effects, never ceases, but shines more and more unto the perfect day. "It has become," says Mr Sewell, a society for education, an intermediate stage of discipline and study between the necessary confinement of a school, and the perfect liberty of manhood. Students do not fre quent the University at present in the ardent, unregulated activity of a disputant in logic, but they are brought here to be governed, and formed, and initiated in those rules of thought, and courses of study, which, in its public and corporate capacity, the University has thought proper to encourage.' And what those studies are, and what the machinery is by which they are carried on, and the spirit pervading the whole system of the place-never were better-if so well explained, as by this good and wise man. "Our system as constituted at present, places in our hands the education of the young in an intermediate stage between boyhood and manhood. They are brought here from the close confinement of school, trusted with no inconsiderable degree of liberty and self-management, left free to a certain extent in their course of reading, the nature of their expenses, the formation of their society, and the employment of their time; but still laid under discipline as members of a corporate society, and subjected more immediately to government by the superintendence of their Colleges and Tutors. This discipline and government is the end of our system; the partial freedom from restraint is permitted as conducing to that end. Young men cannot be treated and controlled as children. Some license must be allowed, not only as a preparation for that full liberty which is soon to follow, but even as a necessary condition of retaining any practical influence upon their hearts and dispositions. And that a certain portion of their life and education should be passed under such a modified restraint, that they should not all at once be let loose from the strictness of their early subjection, that they should exercise by degrees the liberty of maturer years, and be tried in a field of temptation where there are eyes watching, and hands waiting to save; all this seems no unreasonable theory-no undesirable part of a national scheme of education. Men complain of the temptations of the university, and the follies which often are found here. But these temptations are inseparable from the very condition of a system intended to answer the purpose of a preparation and introduction to the world. And these follies must always be expected, till we find human nature perfect, or human control over agents even partially independent, strong enough to exclude the risk of errors. There must be permitted among us a certain degree of freedom-freedom of thought, freedom of study, freedom of action,-if it be desirable, as it is desirable, that young men should pass through this transition state of discipline, and we are to conduct them. "But if this be allowed, another condition of our system necessarily follows. Exactly in proportion as it removes the restraint of abstract rules, it must provide for a closer, a more particular, if I may use the word, a more affectionate superintendence over the habits and actions of the young. It must create an individual influence, an influence of private respect and personal attachment, to reach even the hours and actions which publicly are left free and unguarded. For this purpose the prudent framers of our present statutes provided, that the great mass of students (all, I might say, for the exceptions are insignificant) should be brought under the roofs of their separate colleges, and independently of the Lecturers in public, should none of them be left without a Tutor." The understanding is cultivatedand by finest appliances-as an instrument and a mean, not an end. Mere knowledge, and mere talent, though there they are to be found, deep and brilliant, are not the objects of highest ambition and respect, under a system of Christian education. "In one word," says Mr Sewell," we would stand to the young-first as their moral guardians, and then as their instructors in learning;" and the creed of human nature taught them is drawn from the Bible, and enforced by lessons derived from the fatal errors, as well as the wonderful truths, of heathen philosophy. and that it is, Mr Sewell would be If improvement is still to be made the last to deny-is it to be by an abandonment of the formal part of the system, or by an encouragement and extension of its spirit ? But "We must cherish, not destroy. (it is the point to which I have been leading) the admission into our body of Dissenters from the Established Church must prove its immediate destruction. It must be so for this reason. The University of Oxford is happily not an enlightened body. It sprung and received its support from a strong and earnest spirit of devotion. All its early statutes and foundations were most deeply imbued with religion. Its motto is, The Lord our light.' And, thank God, this has not yet been changed for the light of the present generation. Perhaps there never was a time when, in every denomination of members, the spirit of religion was so strong and so active as at present. All the older members of our societies, either personally or by reputation, are tolerably well known to each other. For a college, one of the first in point of number, I can answer from my own observation. I have known some. thing of nearly all the young men who, during the last few years, have risen into distinction, and been sent into the world. And other opportunities have been given me of observing the tone of opinion prevalent in the great mass of students. It is a most heartfelt delight to be able honestly and sincerely to assert, that a respect for religion, that at least the elements of piety are one of the distinguishing features in the character our system tends to form. There is, of course, vice; there is, of course, indifference; there may be even something worse. In all large bodies of young men, brought from all parts of the country, and from every variety of condition, we know there must be. But in the best and most respected, and only influential part of the society, (I speak of the young as well as of the old,) most frequently coupled with the greatest talents and acquirements, and very often with rank and fortune, a reverence and deference for religion is sure to be found. We are, thank God, a religious body-and by his blessing will continue the same. For, in addition to such habits of thought as many may deem to be prejudice, we have certain other principles and reasons for desiring to constitute religion a most vital and prominent part in our system of moral education. You have lamented the unenlightened state of our minds in this enlightened age. And one light has fallen, not from Heaven, upon the eyes of the present generation, which to us is total darkness. We do not think it possible, we could not even attempt to make men good, without endeavouring to make them Christians. We cannot understand a scheme of moral control, or moral perfection, in which religion, fixed, definite, positive religion, is left out. I will tell you two reasons only, and leave you to judge if they are despicable. "First, then, our view of morality (and moral science is the chiefest of our stu dies) embraces a much wider field than is comprised in the language of the world. Moral goodness is a right state of heart, a right perception and sense of all those relations, in which as moral agents we stand to all other moral beings. It does not rest in mere external actions, nor in any partial scheme of moral affection. Wherever a mind exists, there a relation exists between it and ourselves. Such relations nature has framed us to establish even within our own mind, by giving us the power of reflection. And our moral virtues and moral duties are those feelings, sentiments, tendencies, and obligations, which nature universally excites whenever the relations are perceived. The extent, therefore, and the compass of morality, is limited only by the multitude of moral agents, whose existence we can discover. And any system which excludes a single part, is necessarily false and imperfect. Prudence, therefore, to ourselves, benevolence to man, even piety to God, by itself, if it could possibly exist alone, cannot form in any great scheme of duty the whole perfection of the human heart. Much less can that scheme be perfect, be any thing but a miserable, misshapen, and mutilated fragment, which excludes from our moral relations the relation of man to his God. Hence, as we do not value, as we rather compassionate and dread, mere talent without goodness of heart; so goodness of heart, that is, any thing deserving of the name, we cannot recognise apart from religion. If morality means the absence of certain gross crimes, a man may be destitute of religion, and still be moral. But if morality means goodness, such a man is no more good than the person who commits adultery without robbing, or robs without committing adultery. But, secondly, even if our view of morality was different, and confined to the narrow limits of general opinion, there is another reason of equal weight, which would compel us to make religion, and not mere religion, but Christianity, an integral part of education. "We do not know how to make men good, supposing goodness to be separate from religion, without employing Christianity as an instrument. Very much of our reading and study is devoted to the moral philosophy both of ancient and modern times. And no little interest is taken in the general theory of moral improvement. But looking at the human heart and our human means of acting upon it, we find our hand perfectly powerless, I might say, perfectly empty, without taking up the Bible. As far as the common appeals to human prudence are concerned, nature herself has provided all that ingenuity could imagine, and with how little success I need not say. As for declamatory panegyrics on the dignity and loveliness of virtue, they require, I fear, to be effectual, not a bad heart which needs correction, but a heart already good to admit and understand them. Appeal to human feeling and so cial affections, may indeed do something in keeping men from sin, but in many hearts they scarcely exist, and in all are transient. Change of place destroys their recollection, and the frequency of use will deaden their force. And we remember that beautiful confession of a most eminent man. 'I have practised that honest artifice of Seneca, and in my retired and solitary imagination, to detain me from the foulness of vice, have fancied to myself the presence of my dearest and worthiest friend, before whom I should lose my head, rather than be vicious: yet herein I found that there was nought but moral honesty, and this was not to be virtuous for his sake who must reward us at last. I have tried if I could reach that great resolution of his to be honest without thought of heaven or hell; and indeed I found upon a natural inclination and inbred loyalty unto virtue, that I could serve her without a livery; yet not,' he concludes, 'not in that resolved and venerable way, but that the frailty of my nature, upon any easy temptation, might be induced to forget her.' "The great and constant problem of morals, is the art of making men good. And we know but one solution, which is, to make them Christians. Christianity differs in this from all other systems framed to act upon our moral constitution; that it is a system of external facts. It does indeed employ and excite principles and affections inherent in our common nature. It could do no otherwise. But it places before them other scenes, other beings, other relations, and other prospects, besides what the world contains. It changes our position, and so tries to change the heart. If men think that our follies and vices arise from our situation on earth, cut off from the sight of Heaven, and the direct communication with our Maker, the same change which they would effect by rolling away the sky, and bringing us to the feet of God's throne, is effected by the faith of Christianity. We know no better, no more powerful mode of acting on the human heart. And, therefore, the faith of Christianity is with us the great instrument of morality. “As a part, then, and portion, and by far the largest portion, of goodness, and as the means of producing goodness, we cannot consent to part with our religion. For this reason twice a-day we assemble for public prayer, not as a mere form, or a rule of discipline, but because those who framed our statutes, and many, if not all, who conform to them, believe that the duties of the day are nothing but as consecrated by God; because though a care less discharge of such an act deadens and hardens the heart, a right and faithful attempt to fulfil it is one of the best means of perfection. If men on entering their chapel will compel their attention to rest on the objects before their eyes, and the words put into their mouths, their thoughts by degrees will slide into that frame and temper of mind, from which prayer will naturally flow. And if this exertion is kept up throughout the whole course of our Church Liturgy, twice every day they will practise all the good thoughts and feelings which constitute a Christian life. We do not withhold this opportunity of great good from those who are willing to embrace it, because those who persist in inattention necessarily turn it to evil. On the same principle our statutes command, that the ordinances and articles of our faith should form an essential part in our weekly instruction. In the College to which I belong, probably in many others, nearly a third of our regular lectures is devoted exclusively to religion. And no man leaves us without having passed through a certain course of reading, fixed according to his own powers, in the history, the evidences, the ethics, and especially the peculiar doctrines of the Bible, as asserted in our articles of faith. If you attended at the public examinations of the University, you would find these points not only insisted on in a separate branch, but constantly connected, in proportion to the talents and acquirements of students, with all their other studies,the history of the Bible with the history of heathenism; the criticisms of scholars with the language of the Testament; the ethics of Plato and Aristotle with the moral doctrines of the Gospel; and the theories of ancient philosophy with the tenets and distinctions of our Church. All this is done upon the belief, that in proportion as we give a young man knowledge, we must give him at the same time something to correct and to guide it. It is done because we hold religion to be the best of wisdom, and Christianity the best of religions." Mr Sewell's statements respecting the place which religious instruction holds in the system at Oxford, is as certainly to be depended on as Professor Sedgwick's, respecting the same important point at Cambridge; and we must say that the superiority is immeasurably on the side of Oxford. At Cambridge, "no under graduate is compelled to attend a lecture delivered by any professors of theology," (nor at it a matter of indifference whether Oxford). "To the best of my belief, no college lectures on divinity have ever, within the last thirty years, been delivered, which a Dissenter of any denomination would have scrupled to attend-such lectures being studiously confined to a critical examination of various parts of the New Testament, to discussions on the evidences of Christianity, and so on," &c. Such college lectures must be very cautious concerns-somewhat jejune, and not a little dry. Critical examinations on various parts of the New Testament-we take the liberty to think-could hardly avoid many important points on which, though a Dissenter of any denomination might not scruple to listen to an expounder who belonged to the Church of England, he must scruple to believe one word he hears; nor can the evidences of Christianity be rightly presented, without any regard being paid to the doctrines for we have always thought -nor surely are we singular in that belief that its internal evidence shone like light. But that light must be cleared of mist and cloud to the eyes of the young who desire to see it; and is that internal evidence the same to a Unitarian or a Socinian, as to him who already believes in a very different creed, and listens to lectures that it may be enlightened and confirmed? Many a conscientious Dissenter-nay, all-would scruple to attend the lectures of Mr Sewell. But the reason of this wide and vast difference between the two systems, in as far as regards religious instruction, is manifest. At Cambridge, Dissenters have been for a good many years admitted, at Oxford there are none; and care has been taken, it would appear, not to "But, if their conversion is prohibited, hurt their feelings, so that within we will not consent to take the charge. these thirty years no college lectures We will not affect to educate, where the on divinity have been delivered, great end of education is excluded. We which, to the best of Professor Sedgwill not pretend to control, when the wick's belief-and he is at once an unexceptionable witness and an enlightened judge-"a Dissenter of any denomination would have scrupled to attend." May we express our surprise, that during all those thirty years, no college lecturer on divinity should have arisen who scrupled to deliver them? "Is it necessary for me now to explain, Why, consistently with her principles and duty, the University of Oxford cannot and ought not to consent to the admission of Dissenters to its body? "Even if you would send us your sons, and permit us, as we surely should endeavour, to attempt their conversion, we should be reluctant to bring within our walls such elements of religious dispute. great engine of control is taken from our hands. We deny the possibility of edu cating men as Christians, upon any wide sects by excluding all distinctions. Na comprehensive plan, which shall unite all out faith, or repentance, or an atonement, tural religion, that is, a religion withor a sanctifying spirit, or a visible Church, this may be taught; but with what effect the heathen world can answer. are not heathens, and we will not under Mr Sewell does not therefore agree with Professor Sedgwick in thinking take to become the priests of nature. We |