religious bodies differing less from the Church of Elizabeth than the Church of Elizabeth differed from the Church of Becket? We cannot be in doubt which alternative to embrace. The Church of the Refor-fence but that of loving the truth, and desiring mation has now become divided into many branches. But the Universities were at first, and continued till the time of the last Stuarts, what they are in justice now: the property, not of any one Church, nor of all the Churches taken together, but of the English people. And the true restoration of the ancient system would be to make every citizen of Great Britain now, as every citizen of the whole European commonwealth was then, eligible to all their offices, honours, and emoluments. So much for the history of the matter: let us see now upon what abstract grounds of right the claim of the Anglican Church is rested. It is said that the control of the national Universities is essential to the existence of the national Church, and we are threatened with the ultimate destruction of the Establishment if we inflict such blows upon her. We firmly believe that no such results would follow; but after all, the question is not of the interests of the Church of England, but of the claims and interests of the whole country; and, even if the proposed change should impair the power of the Church, it would nevertheless be a necessary, because a just measure. If, as has been argued in the preceding pages, the functions of the Universities are secular, if they have really nothing to do with any Church, what reason can be given for keeping them in the hands of the State Church? In the eye of the law they are lay corporations, subject to no ecclesiastical jurisdiction, visited by the Sovereign in the Court of Queen's Bench. Historically, they are national institutions, founded to be the instructors of the whole people, at a time when, as the whole people were of one Church, there was no sectarian jealousy to interfere with their beneficent mission. Their restriction to members of the Church of England dates only from the reign of Charles II., when the Church ceased to represent the nation, and is but a part of that system of exclusion and persecution which disgraced our history for a century and a half; the system which "treated the Dissenter as half a criminal and half a citizen," and which has left among us an evil legacy of hatred and envy, and the rankling sense of wrong. To quote the words of the eloquent pamphlet which we have placed at the head of this article:* *We have not quoted more largely from Professor Goldwin Smith's pamphlet, one of the most "These tests are the vestiges, the last lingering vestiges, of an age of religious tyranny and oppression of conscience,-an age when the best of Christians and of citizens, guilty of no ofto impart it to their brethren, were treated as felons, barassed, fined, thrust into noisome dungeons, and kept there till they died, at the instigation of ecclesiastics who dishonoured the Christian name, and by the hands of politicians, who equally dishonoured it, and who in many cases had no convictions whatever of their own; when the Eucharist itself, the bond of Christian love, was prostituted to the purposes of political hatred with the approbation of a socalled Christian clergy, though with a profanity worse, because deeper in its nature, and polluting holier things, than the impieties of the ignorant heathen; when in Scotland, many a peasant, merely for worshipping God in the way he thought the best, was shot down by a godless selves the successors of the Apostles; when Iresoldiery hounded on by bishops styling themland was oppressed by the penal code which bribed the child to apostasy by enabling him, as a reward, to strip his father of his property, and not only of his inherited property, but of that which he might himself acquire; when immorality and infidelity went hand in hand with my lay in prison for their convictions, obscene spiritual slavery; and, while Baxter and Calaplays were being acted in the harem of a Defender of the Faith, who lived a careless infidel, mocking at morality and God, and who died a craven infidel, calling in his panic for the viaticum of superstition. Is not that age, with all that belonged to it, numbered with the past? Are not its practices disclaimed even by those who have not yet eradicated its sentiments from their hearts? Have not all men, capable of profiting by any experience whatever, profited by the experience which, recorded in characters more terrible than those of blood, tells us that conscience cannot be forced, that God will accept none but a free allegiance; and that reason, and reason alone, is our appointed instrument for bringing each other to the truth? Can any of opinion, which the great powers of the earth, one imagine that the suppression of differences seated on its most ancient and awful thrones, fail to effect with their united force, will be effected by a party born but yesterday, and still unsettled in its own opinions, with so miserable a fragment of that force as an academical test? Why should we, the great body of the English people, who have no interest to serve but those of truth and sincere religion, any longer oppress, vex, and barass the consciences of each other? Why should we thus aggravate the religious perplexities and distresses which are gathering fast enough around us all? If it is for a political object that we do this, how can true policy be divorced from justice? If it is for a religious object, how can religion consist with depravation of conscience?" brilliant productions of its brilliant author, only because we conclude that every person who is interested in the question will procure and read it for himself. Nor, indeed, can any reason be given for | without obtaining fellowships, much to the confining the Universities to Churchmen, vexation of their College, which was powerwhich would not have been equally a reason less to help them. While Dissenters have so for maintaining the Test and Corporation Acts. mortifying a prospect before them, it need But if the National Church be not the not be thought strange that the Church is Church of the whole nation, but of little left in undisputed possession. If outward conmore than the half; if the proportion of its formity be that which is really vital to a adherents has been steadily decreasing; if Church-more vital than faith in her docstruggles and recriminations within threaten trines, or love for her services, or zeal in her disruption; if there is not, judging the future work-then may the church rejoice, for outfrom the past, any prospect of its gathering, ward conformity at the Universities she has. while its services and its tests remain what It is purchased at the price of a great injusthey are, the whole population within its tice to the nation, and of the sorrow and dispale, the question assumes a very different gust of many of her own best members. But aspect. If the interests of Anglicanism are it is supposed to be the necessary support of not those of the nation, what reason can be her power, and so every change will be regiven for sacrificing the greater to the less? sisted until resistance has at last become Every Englishman has just as good a right hopeless. to seek the benefits of the education which the great public academies provide, and share in the endowments which the munificence of past generations has bequeathed to the nation, as he has to enter the civil or military service of the Crown, to become a member of an Inn of Court, or of the House of Commons. Sectarian restrictions are as unjust in the one instance as in the other. That resistance, however, will come not from the Church of England herself, but from a political faction within her which falsely claims to speak in her name. The force of her reasons which have been set forth above is admitted by many excellent men, some in the Universities, others filling positions of dignity and influence in the Church. They grant that a test is of all It will be seen that our case against tests, tools the most useless and the most dangerconsidered as enforcing conformity to the ous, and they deplore both the disquietude of Church, differs from that brought against mind which exists in the great seats of learnthem as aids to theological truth. Both ends ing, and the exclusion of so large a part of appear to us equally mistaken, equally re- their fellow-subjects from the benefits of a moved from the business of a place of education. high education. They would willingly reThe means too are equally objectionable on lax or abolish the present subscriptions, if moral grounds, for the means are the same they did not fear such a course might involve declarations and subscriptions. But here the other evils still graver than the present. Even likeness ends. In the former case we saw if mere timidity and aversion to change were that the means had signally failed of their at the bottom of these fears, the characters aim, that their tendency had been to create of those whom they influence would oblige doubt instead of allaying it. Here no such us to regard them with respectful attention. complaint has been made. As a means of But it would be absurd to deny that there excluding Nonconformists from the Universi- are some difficulties in the reform proposed, ties, the tests are not only effective, but far as well as much in the circumstances of the more effective than any one supposed they time, to excite apprehensions and make obwould be. Their maintenance for the de-jections even plausible. To show, therefore, gree of M.A., and for the fellowships, has at Oxford almost wholly neutralized the benevolent intentions of the Legislature, when it invited Dissenters to come, by abolishing the subscription at matriculation and the B.A. degree. Seeing themselves debarred from all the great prizes of the place, and knowing that whatever their aptitude for teaching or love of study, they will not be permitted to remain as tutors, few, very few, members of any non-Anglican body have availed themselves of the change of 1854. At Cambridge, which has never been quite so exclusive, it happened lately that two senior wranglers in succession, being one of them a Scotch Presbyterian and the other an English Nonconformist, were obliged to leave the University if possible, that their importance has been exaggerated, that they are not sufficient to outweigh the advantages of a change, is at least as important a part of the whole case as the statement of the accusations brought against tests themselves. The first and most serious of these objections is that which concerns the religious teaching of the Universities. That teaching, it is feared, will be lost if its standards, the tests, are removed. One might suppose, from the reverence and affection with which this religious teaching is dwelt on, that it is the chief occupation of the University to give it, and that a correspondingly deep impression is produced on those who receive it. The influence may be conscience of a Dissenter; but if any should object, it would be easy to excuse his attendance, just as those who are thought able to pass the University examination are frequently excused now. Lastly, there are the public University sermons, which no student is bound to attend, but which the orthodox Dissenter, who has usually more taste for sermons than his Anglican compeer, is rather more likely to frequent than the majority of the present undergraduates. Can any one who really values religious teaching attach any weight to what has been described? If religious instruction is the chief business of the University, how comes it that she gives her pupils such a scanty pittance? Such as it is, however, it is quite independent of the tests, and might, as far as doctrine goes, be given equally well by or to a Catholic or a Dissenter. The abolition of tests would not affect it, unless Parliament added a provision to that ef fect, for it rests on University and College rules, which a majority of Convocation or of the fellows in any existing College are alone competent to change. Lastly, so far as it is a difficulty, it has arisen already at the bidding of Parliament, for Dissenting undergraduates do now come to Cambridge, and Roman Catholics to Oxford. great, but the quantity is certainly small. For the benefit of those persons who know it only by report, an exact statement of it must be given. At Cambridge one Gospel is required at the little-go examination, and two or three questions are put in Paley's Evidences of Christianity. The best examination on record has been passed by a Jew. At Oxford the candidate is questioned in the text of the four Gospels at the examination before moderators, and a general, usually a very general knowledge of Old Testament history and of the text of the Thirty-nine Articles is required in passing the final examination for the degree of B.A. Even this may be avoided by any one who, professing himself not a member of the Church of England, offers himself for examination in one Greek and one Latin author, by way of compensation. Of the Colleges we will speak presently; but as far as regards the University, all the religious training that the undergraduate receives is comprised in these several examinations. There are, indeed, both at Oxford and Cambridge, theological professors giving stated lectures; but inasmuch as only students of theology are obliged to attend these lectures, and no one else ever does, they cannot be considered a part of the general teaching. Now, an academical body has a perfect right It is also said, and this was an argument to examine for her degrees in any branch of on which stress was laid in the Oxford peknowledge whatever, the narratives of Scrip- tition against Mr. Bouverie's bill, that the ture included; and to such an examination abolition of tests will introduce all sorts of no Protestant Dissenter, perhaps not even a religious differences, and destroy the peace Roman Catholic, would have either the right and harmony which now prevail in the Unior the will to object. There is not therefore versities. The subject is grave, yet one can any need for a change in this respect. But hardly repress a smile at such words as these. considering that this so-called religious teach- Peace and harmony indeed! when professors ing is just what the University of London or anathematize their colleagues; when Unithe "godless Colleges" in Ireland would give, versity quarrels are fought out in the columns if they asked the candidate for a degree two of the daily press; when, on every question or three questions about the kings of Israel to which the least religious colour can possiand Judah, and the chronological order of bly be given, excited voters swarm up from the gospel miracles, and considering also that every country parsonage; when every comit is usually crammed up, in the fortnight be- mon-room resounds with theological warfore the examination, from the manuals of cries; when members of Parliament come Pinnock or Wheeler, its supposed peril need down from London to encourage the underhardly excite such terror. As to the Colleges, graduates to organize themselves into societies those of Cambridge give no compulsory in- against the so-called liberalism of their teachstruction in theology at all. In those of Ox- ers. The discord which has prevailed in Oxford, a "Divinity lecture," as it is called, is a ford since the beginning of the Tractarian regular part of the College work, being in- movement could not be aggravated by the tended to prepare the student for the Uni- presence of Nonconformists and Roman Caversity examination. In this lecture, how-tholics, for the points upon which those bodies ever, little or no doctrinal instruction is given; the pupils construe the text of the Gospels, the tutor asks what such and such a phrase would be in Attic Greek, or inquires a little into the genealogies of the Herods. That is all.* There is nothing which can affect the * Very much the same thing takes place in the Greek classes of the Scotch Universities every Mon differ from the standards of the Church of England are less serious than the points now debated between members of the Church herself. It may be said that as this state of things is recent, and due to temporary causes, day; and there the taught have never been oppressed by tests at any time, while the teachers have been free from them since 1853. sup so it will be transient. This is surely an ad- | in the Scotch Universities, where the theolomission that tests have not produced unani-gical faculty remains in connexion with the mity, at least no one proposes to check the Established Church, while the other faculties variance of opinion by imposing stricter ones. Transient, indeed, we believe it may be made, but by an expedient exactly opposite. It is not to be expected or wished that all theological controversy should cease, for so long as the minds of fallible men differ, so long will discussion be a sign of life and interest and activity, and silence a sign of deadness. All that can be hoped for is to take from theological disputes that peculiar acrimony which now disgraces them. In the world at large, this can be accomplished only by the growth of a spirit of charity and forbearance. In the University, nothing is so likely to promote it as a removal of the existing tests, which draw men's attention perforce to doctrinal differences, which give occasion to the reproach of deceit, which, by humiliating men, incline them to talk and write more bitterly. Some persons who admit that the claims of the Nonconformists deserve consideration, argue that as they have already their denominational Colleges, and free entrance to the University of London, there is no injustice in keeping the older academies for the Church of England, which must also have theological seminaries of her own. Here there is a serious misapprehension. Oxford and Cambridge are in no sense theological seminaries. The religious teaching given to the ordinary undergraduates is, as has been seen, a mere phantom, a phrase which sounds well in Parliament, but has nothing corresponding to it in the reality. That which the theological student receives is somewhat greater, but still absurdly small, far less than a candidate for orders is forced to pass through in Scotland or Germany. It is confined to attendance at two courses of lectures of some of the Divinity professors; that is to say, to the production of two certificates, each witnessing that A. B. has sat for ten or twelve hours in the professor's lecture-room. At Cambridge there is a theological examination, but the University leaves it optional, though some bishops require candidates for orders to have undergone it. In fact, the want of a proper course of Divinity at the old Universities has been felt so much, that a whole crop of theological Colleges has sprung up to supply its defects. It is not easy to see how the admission of Dissenters would interfere with the Divinity lectures, for the professors being by statute clergymen, and most of them canons, would necessarily continue members of the Church of England, subject in that behalf to the ordinary clerical tests. The state of things would be just that which now exists VOL. XLII. N-5 are free. Those who suppose that the ortho- Un A difficulty somewhat more serious, and indeed the only one that can be considered serious at all, has reference to the domestic arrangement of the Colleges. Divine service is performed in their chapels according to the rites of the Church of England, and it is thought that, if Dissenters are not required to attend, it will be hard to enforce the attendance of others. The difficulty is not, however, a new one, for undergraduates are now admitted who belong to other communions, and no complaints have been made of perplexities caused thereby. If Catholics, they are desired by the College authorities to attend mass on Sundays in their own place ensnaring and disquieting. It would also be a new test, with a meaning perplexing because unascertained, and liable to be interpreted more strictly than the old one, whose edge has been now pretty well blunted in the wear and tear of three centuries. If bona fide membership were taken to mean, as it would naturally seem to mean, that the person professing it was in full communion with the Church of England, accepted her faith in a general sense, and was in the regular habit of attending her services, then a great many persons who now become members of Convocation could not with honesty take it. If it means less than this, what is its value as a safeguard at all? To those classes, moreover, who are now excluded, it would be no benefit, but an injury and discouragement. The great majority of English Nonconformists and Scotch Presbyterians can at present sign the Thirty-nine Articles, considered merely as a doctrinal formulary, as honestly as most Anglicans. But a declaration such as this it would be quite impossible for them to make, without openly deserting the religion of their fathers. There would also be a peculiar harshness, a refinement of injustice, in thus giving relief to those within, while shutting the door tighter against others without. For it would be to reason thus: "Outward uniformity with the Church appears to us so vitally important, that we must reject yon if you cannot profess it. But the belief in dogmatic truth is so slight a thing, that we will Or in other of worship. If Protestants, they are not usually compelled to go to the College service, but in nine cases out of ten they go, and would probably continue to do so. They admit the beauty of the English Liturgy, and find little or nothing in it of a controversia! nature. Some Colleges at Cambridge have had a good many Nonconforming students, and as things have gone smoothly enough there, one does not see why they should not be made to do so at Oxford. It is only in the position of the fellows, whom the abolition of tests would release from the obligation of conformity, that any change would be introduced. Even here the difference would be scarcely perceptible. Practically, a fellow of a College goes to chapel now when he pleases, and stays away when he pleases, the latter more frequently; he would do much the same then. In fact, most of these difficulties which look formidable in the abstract are found in the concrete to vanish altogether. There never was a great principle advocated yet which did not find men starting up to oppose it with petty objections of detail, objections which, even supposing them valid, were not worthy to be weighed against the benefits it promised, and which, when the experiment was tried, were usually proved to be chimerical. So will it be in this case also. The Anglican service will not be interfered with, for the vast majority both of undergraduates and fellows will continue to be Anglicans. No problem will present itself which may not easily be solved by a little mutual not require it of you at all." consideration and forbearance. As to the no-words: "That which is essential to the tion that men of different religious persua- Church and to salvation is her organization sions cannot join in the common offices of College life, cannot dine at the same table, or help to set the same examination papers, it is not more injurious to the character of the fellows than it is chimerical. If the quarrels of the last few years have not destroyed courtesy and mutual regard, as they assuredly have not, nothing will. course. -- No examination of this question would be complete without some account of the various compromises by which it has been proposed, while rendering a measure of relief to the persons who now complain, to respect the scruples and allay the fears of those who think downright abolition too hazardous a Among these there was one eagerly canvassed during the debate in Parliament last session, the proposal to place Oxford on the same footing with Cambridge, by substituting for subscription to the Articles, a declaration of bona fide membership in the Church of England. Considerable as this relef would be to many, it would not meet the case of all who now suffer. Such a declaration would still be a test, and therefore both as a visible body; that which is indifferent, is the doctrinal system she holds." Feeling this, the strong Church party are resolved to cling to the Articles at all hazards; and we confess, that if there are to be tests at all, doctrinal ones appear to us the most consistent, and not the most unfair. Nothing would really be gained to the cause of justice by this compromise, nor do we suppose it likely to find support in any quarter. A second compromise that has been suggested is less objectionable in itself, although it is but a small instalment of what may fairly be demanded. It is proposed, instead of admitting Dissenters into the existing Colleges, to allow them to found halls of their own, where they may celebrate their own services, and educate their students in the way they like best. This they cannot do now, on account of a clause in the University statutes requiring the master of a private hall to be a member of Convocation, i.e., to have signed the Articles; and if that clause were removed, any number of miniature sectarian Colleges might be erected at once. Com |