to provide a course of professional education for the ministers of religion of those congregations who do not belong to the Established Church. It was equally impossible to institute any theological lectures for the instruction of lay students of different religious persuasions, which would not have been liable to grave objections; still less was it practicable to introduce any religious observances that could be generally complied with. In the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the students removed from the superintendence of their parents and guardians, are placed in colleges, or new domestic establishments, where it is necessary that religious instruction should be provided. In the case of the University of London, none of the students will reside within the walls; they will live in the houses of their parents or guardians; and those who come from a distance will live in houses selected by their friends, with such precautions for the safety of their morals and of their religious opinions as will naturally be adopted on the occasion. A plan is in contemplation (which will be more fully explained in a subsequent part of this Statement), by which those students who come from a distance may be boarded in houses where they will be under the guidance of persons of their own religious opinions, and where they will be subjected to rules of discipline for the protection of their morals. The religious education of the pupils, therefore, will be left to domestic superintendence, being the same provision which at present exists for that important object in all cases except those of undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge during their residence in College. There are many hundreds of young men constantly in London, who come from the country for the sake of professional education in Law and Medicine, who have no guide for their religious education, unless they find it in relatives or friends interested in their welfare. To all such persons the discipline intended to be enforced in the University of London within its walls, will constitute an additional check upon their conduct. The Council had many long and anxious deliberations upon this subject, which they felt to be of paramount importance; but they found it impossible to unite the principle of free admission to persons of all religious denominations with any plan of theological instruction, or any form of religious discipline; and they were thus compelled by necessity to leave this great and primary object of education, which they deem far too important for compromise, to the direction and superintendence of the natural guardians of the pupils.-Statement, p. 12. Now, as Christianus very properly remarks, p. 28, It is difficult to understand what is meant in the part of the preceding extract, wherein it is stated, that the provision for the religious education of the pupils in the London University, by domestic superintendence, is 'the same provision which exists in all cases, except those of undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge, during their residence in College.' Here they except the only two cases which are really parallel; so that when they tell us that the same provision exists in all cases except these two, the upshot of their meaning is, that it exists in no parallel case whatever. If, however, they refer to other institutions for the instruction of youth, not strictly academical, their statement is completely erroneous. In all our public schools; for instance, in that of St. Bee's in Cumberland, which partakes most of the academical character; in our Military and Naval Colleges; in the East India College at Hayleybury; the religious instruction of youth is not left to the care of parents, but forms an integral part of the education publicly provided. I should feel completely at a loss to mention any single case, parallel to this of the London University, in which religion forms no part of the system of education. But if the assertion be understood of students of law and medicine, its reasoning is evidently inconclusive. For the hospitals and inns of court only profess to communicate particular knowledge, and by no means to add "those subjects which constitute THE ESSENTIAL PARTS OF A LIBERAL EDUCATION;" which the London University professes to teach, and of which Theology assuredly is the very first, as regards both the sublimity of the science, and the mighty consequences which it embraces. The reason, indeed, assigned for the exclusion of religion in every shape is as defective as the examples are inapplicable. Without delaying to canvass the wisdom of an university without a religion, we hesitate not to say that it might be "open to all religious denominations," and yet Christian theology consistently taught in it. The American universities are unrestricted in this respect, and yet they have never dreamed of considering theology other than an integral and most essential portion of their studies. Jewish students might be indulged with a dispensation: but what other religious denomination could claim exemption we really cannot see. The youthful sceptic, and his philosophic parent, of course, could make no hesitation on the subject, without betraying a nervousness very inconsistent with their professions. Their enlightened and invigorated minds could surely be in no danger of captivity from the most learned or eloquent advocates of antiquated superstitions. And had the projectors of the London University endowed a divinity professor, they would not have had one student the less. Dissenters, and even Romanists, go to Cambridge for the benefit of the education, although they are excluded from degrees; and there is no reason to imagine that a similar result should not have obtained here, where there are no degrees to exclude from. At all events, it is strange, that, among 66 the many long and anxious deliberations" of the Council, an experiment so well sanctioned should have been left untried; especially when the alternative was considered. But did it never occur, amid these deliberations, that the Bible was a book which all Christians admitted? Could it be so very injurious to require a knowledge of the Greek Testament? Is not the Greek of the New Testament in itself a peculiar study, to which the classical Greek authors afford small introduction? When history stands on the list of "essentials," must the most ancient of histories lie totally neglected? Must the sublimities of the poetical and prophetical books make no part of a liberal education? Or is it because the education is so very liberal, that it would be the height of illiberality to mention them? But the absurdity would be well worth ridicule, did not the impiety compel reprobation. For what is the Hebrew Professor to impart to his pupils? The Talmuds, and the reveries of the Rabbies? Perhaps these will be thought too theological. But on the Bible he can never intrench, without high treason against liberality and the Council. How enlightened would be the principle which would exclude the Greek professor from Homer and Demosthenes, and limit him to Tzetzes and Zosimus; or compel the Latin lecturer, for Virgil and Cicero, to substitute Commodian and the venerable Bede! Yet equal absurdities arise from this distorted system. We would not charge the Council with a desire of scoffing at the subject of religion; yet, really, had they been desirous of so doing, we cannot conceive a more effectual method than that which they have adopted in their plan for lodging the students homogeneously. How any men of common sense, after " many long and anxious deliberations," could acquiesce in any measure so profoundly ridiculous, as likely to advance the religious interests of the student, would be inconceivable, were it not undeniable. The landlords and landladies, doubtless, will be very respectable people; but, we should think, their names would scarcely be convertible terms for professors of divinity. The writer of this, when at Cambridge, was lodged with a most respectable and truly respected fishmonger, who was a very good churchman; yet this man could scarcely have proved a succedaneum for a Marsh, a Kaye, or a Calvert. And if the students of the London University bring with them no more theological knowledge than they are likely to pick up from their "goodmen" and their "dames," they must belong to a different order of society from the generality of academicals. But the result is obvious. The vices which are charged upon our universities, but which are, in reality, the effect of any large assemblage of young people, will have, in the London University, no counteracting influence. In the national establishments, the youth, if he errs, has the light before him, and when the causes of intoxication have subsided, can retrace his road. Even in his strongest temptations there is the fear of a vigilant discipline. In the London establishment, the light that is within him (to borrow an awful Scripture expression) is darkness. And "how great is that darkness!" Taught to regard religion as only fit for the lips of petty tradesmen and old women; never hearing the subject from these his precious teachers, or hearing it only in language which reminds him, by its contrast, of the polished periods of the lecture room; he is naturally led to despise his first interest, and to learn, at the end of his learned course, if it pleases God to soften his heart so far, that " in much wisdom is much grief, and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow;" the bitterly pathetic confession of one who had tried, to its fullest extent, the experiment of knowledge abstracted from religion. To retard, in some degree, the impetuosity of the torrent, three of the clerical professors, Messrs. Williams and Dale, and Dr. Lardner, have obtained leave of the Council to deliver lectures in an Episcopal Chapel, to be called the University Chapel, for the benefit of church students. We are happy to contemplate this arrangement, and, since the establishment does exist, we will not reprobate those respectable clergymen who have lent their support to it, but rather congratulate the public that some of its inherent mischief is likely to be averted or neutralized by their active and watchful influence. Still we cannot perceive how the case can be materially improved, while the whole constitution of the establishment is so miserably diseased. Meetinghouses will, doubtless, arise around, founded by the "liberality" of the University, and we shall have the edifying spectacle of " the University Unitarian Chapel," "the University New Jerusalem Chapel," and all the absurdities and discordances which are but the minor grievances in so ruinous a measure. As the only real counteraction, which, in the present state of matters, can be applied, we shall submit the project which two of the pamphlets throw out, and which has been reduced into the sketch of a plan by the zealous and exemplary Dr. D'Oyly, Rector of Lambeth, in which form we shall present it to our readers. The following Sketch of a Plan for the Education of the Youth of the Metropolis is offered to the Consideration of the Public. It proceeds on this acknowledged truth, that every system of General Instruction for a Christian community ought to be grounded on the principles of Christianity. I. A College for General Education to be founded on an extensive scale, in the Metropolis; in which, while the various branches of Literature and Science are made the subject of instruction, it shall be an essential part of the system pursued, to imbue the minds of youth with a knowledge of the Doctrines and Duties of Christianity, as inculcated by the United Church of England and Ireland. To be under the patronage of His Majesty, and to be entitled "The King's College, London;" to be erected on a scite as convenient as possible for the attendance of Day Students from all parts of the Metropolis. II. In this College, a liberal and enlarged course of Education to be pursued, in the mode best adapted to the respective ages of the Students. Those of less advanced age to be instructed in Schools, and those of maturer age in Lecture Rooms, under Professors. The system to comprise Religion and Morals, Classical Learning, Mathematics, History, and Modern Languages; and for the elder Students, the higher branches of Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Medicine, Chemistry, Jurisprudence, &c.: thus providing for the two great objects of communicating general knowledge, and of affording specific preparation for particular professions. The benefit of attending any Course of Lectures, to be extended to all who may be disposed to avail themselves of them, under such regulations as may be prescribed. III. The extent to which resident Students shall be received within the walls of the College, to be the subject of future consideration. IV. The College to be placed under the superintendance of a Principal, with a competent number of Professors and Tutors. Visitor. His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. The following persons to be Governors in virtue of their offices: The Archbishop of York. The Bishop of London. The Dean of St. Paul's. The Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench. The Speaker of the House of Commons. By whom all appointments are to be approved, and all regulations respecting the discipline and course of education sanctioned. The Governors to be assisted in conducting the general affairs of the Institution by a Committee of Management, or Council. V. The Buildings of the College to be erected in a style worthy of the Metropolis, and on a plan which will admit of being extended in the most ample manner to meet the demands of the public. It is calculated that by the expenditure of from £100,000 to £150,000, effect may, in the first instance, be given to its operations. VI. The Funds to be raised by Subscriptions and Donations; the whole to be divided into Shares of £100 each, entitled to an Annual Dividend of Profit not exceeding £4 per Share. Subscribers' Shares to be payable by instalments, and transferable. Donations to be invested in Shares for the benefit of the Institution, and transferred to Trustees, who are to apply the Dividends thereon to a fund for Endowments, Exhibitions, Annual Prizes, &c. All Surplus Profits to go in aid of the Fund for Endowments, &c. May 31st, 1828. It is requested that all persons who are disposed to promote the undertaking will signify their intention as early as possible to the Rev. Dr. D'OYLY, Lambeth Rectory. Such an institution as this will well deserve the patronage of the public, and amply compensate the patrons. It will greatly diminish, if not entirely destroy, the injurious effects of the other. It will assemble within its walls the children of all those parents, who are anxious to unite a solid and religious education with a domestic residence. It will, by unfurling the standard of religious truth, discover whether the great body of the people of London are sound Christians or latitudinarian speculatists; and this discovery will either so materially reduce the ranks of the non-religionists, that their institution must necessarily fall, or it will compel the disaffected and irreligious to avow their combination against our hopes and our securities, and thus show us with whom we are contending; either of which results cannot fail to be productive of advantage. Indeed the character of the London University may be tolerably collected from the uncontradicted and public affirmation of a member of its Council, at the commemoration dinner of the Mechanics' Institution. Mr. Brougham did not hesitate to call the London University the daughter of the Mechanics' Institution. Can it be supposed that desultory and superficial systems of illsorted and ill-concocted knowledge can produce an establishment of solid and digestible information? They who look for wisdom to the only book excluded from the studies of the London University, have been taught that men do not gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles; and that a fountain doth not send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter.* ON GENESIS IV. 1. MR. EDITOR.--In my former communication, I have shewn that those versions of Gen. iv. 1, which require us to understand N, eth, either as a noun, or as a preposition, are not supported by satisfactory evidence; which, if not a conclusive, is clearly a strong argument for the only remaining alternative, namely, to construe it as a particle denoting the accusative case. If it be so received, the clause cannot otherwise be rendered than " I have gotten the man, the Jehovah," or by words to this effect. This is the fair inference; in addition to which it is a rendering that necessarily results from the undoubted idiom of the Hebrew tongue. If this assertion can be made good, the proposed version must be allowed to stand on unassailable ground: to this point, therefore, we must direct our attention. According to the idiom of the Hebrew language, WHEN TWO NOUNS, WITH BETWEEN THEM, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW A VERB TRANSITIVE, THE LATTER NOUN IS IN APPOSITION WITH, OR RELATES TO THE SAME SUBJECT AS THE FORMER. An instance of this construction occurs in the very next verse- "And she again bare his brother Abel," ban ng 18 N, eth achiv eth Habel, which one might suppose sufficient of itself to evince the propriety of interpreting the pre Since the above article was written, the Council have put forth a second Statement, which we shall probably notice in our next Number. |