As for the complication, &c., why did it ever exist? No honorable reason can be given. The present generation ought not to be blamed for it, if they showed eagerness to get rid of it: but our Author seems to defend them in going on contentedly under it. The defence which he makes-(dread of the spirit of the Age) – is at once insufficient to justify and inadequate to account for the facts. Before that spirit awoke, they were not more active than now to remove these blots.] Note (100) referred to in PAGE 392. On the right of Self-defence of the Universities against encroach ments. That species of absurdity,* or insincerity, which under the name of tolerance demands of any element positively founded in feeling, conviction, right and material possession, that it should give up without defence, its privileges, its possessions, its nature, and its existence, to the first* vague negative opinion or desire that might arise, may also be found frequently enough in England, especially in modern times. This however is, properly speaking, a plant of German growth, and may be considered as a fruit of that softhearted, well-intentionedness and tameness which proceed from our bound and fettered condition. Modern Philosophy, it is true, has sought to deck out the evil with glittering figures of speech. Any one desirous of seeing the state of things in England represented with all that want of character by which the German “juste milieu" is distinguished, should read Herr Von Raumer's work. Meanwhile it is well known, that the only persecutions to which liberalism is exposed in Oxford and Cambridge, are confined to the Tories being selected "cæteris paribus," in preference to the Liberals, for livings, benefices, or official posts; or, in other words, * [Our worthy Author appears so an ignorant, or a most fantastical and excited against the despotic tendencies of German Centralization, as quite to misconceive what are the needs the rights and the claims of Freedom in England. He sets up a brawling, unreasonable University-Reformer, as a sort of man of straw to knock down. It does not seem to me worth while to set him up again.] that no one is anxious to open the gate to the enemy. And then again, we are told of the unheard-of cruelty of attempting to remove preachers, whose doctrines are* contrary to the dogma of the Anglican Church as was the case lately in Oxford with Hampden, (otherwise certainly a most meritorious man,) on account of his Bampton Lectures. Doubtless, the same line of conduct is observed against the other members of the Universities, who make themselves conspicuous by their hostility to the spirit, the principles, and the rights of the Universities. The criterion, the standard by which to decide what appertains to self-defence, is probably to be found nowhere but in the instinct of each party. This instinct seldom or never errs. On the contrary, in the struggles of the different religious and spiritual tendencies, it is very remarkable how soon the positive Christian elements recognized what was the danger that threatened them from the soi disant most harmless and apparently most beneficial tendencies of the general cultivation of man. But There is but one way of giving a just historical view of political contests; viz. to grant to every Party, even if it be not in itself absolutely and clearly justified, a right of self-preservation; and leave it to every individual to find out to which he belongs. it is the height of confusion of ideas, to suppose, that if a tendency does but want all positive foundation, it thereby at once gains the right of destroying all others, without defence, under the pretext of freedom. Every one, who is not quite a condemned miserable sinner, should at least be permitted to defend his own life; equally then the Church and the Universities. To those who are fearful about the higher unity of historical developement, I must reply briefly in the words of the Spanish proverb, "Cada uno por si y Dios sobre todos:" and the world at all events would do better with this maxim, than under the shocking presumption * [This, if uncontradicted, may be mistaken for admitted fact. The friends of Dr. Hampden complain, that he was condemned (virtually) for heresy, by a tribunal which had no right to try a cause of heresy; without any statement of his offence, or any possibility for him to make a reply. He may be guilty, but he was not treated with common justice. He was appointed by valid authority, and his functions were impaired by a democratic interference.] which, favored as it is by pitiable cowardice and hypocrisy, so easily succeeds in giving the tendency predominating for the time a usurped part to play, bestowing upon it that absolute moral right which belongs only to the LORD of Heaven and Earth. NOTE (101) REFERRED TO IN PAGE 298. Professor Huber insists, first, that the Colleges, and therefore, that the Universities, are by inherent and perpetual right an Ecclesiastical organ and possession: and therefore, that the State may not interfere to alter their subscriptions. The first assertion appears to me every way questionable, and the two deductions to be most undoubtedly illogical and untrue. This I will endeavor to show. (1) First, he says that the Colleges ever were and are organs of "the Church." But of what Church? He cannot mean of the Church of Christ, as such; of the Church in all places and under all organizations; for this would admit the very Dissenters whom he excludes. The most valuable Colleges were founded for the Church of Rome, yet this is the community most pointedly shut out by the existing regulations. The system now in force is a flagrant and undeniable violation of Founders' Wills: and for those who uphold things as they are, to plead a conscientious regard for the sanctity of Testaments and Foundations, as a reason against admitting Dissenters or Laymen to participate in the Fellowships, is straining-out a gnat and swallowing a camel. It has been argued with much apparent force, that the Acts of Parliament which enforce an abjuration of the Romish Creed, and of ordination according to that plan which the Founders contemplated, do virtually abolish those Foundation Statutes, which enjoin the entering into Holy Orders. If it be alledged that the Founders would probably have approved the present system, if they could have foreseen the present times, - this is but a surmise, and justifies the retort :—Perhaps they would have preferred to have the whole diverted to lay-purposes, rather than to the establishment of a rival creed. Indeed it must be remembered that in early times the sacerdotal order contained all the literary men of the nation; so that a clerk (or clergyman) became identical with one who could read and write. Even until a recent time no one could keep a school without a license from the Bishop. It is certain that the Founders desired their Fellows to become men of letters, not parish priests: ought we not then to interpret "sacerdotal" pursuits to mean ་་ literary" pursuits, since (if we will not admit Romanists) we can no longer adhere to the strict and undoubted meaning of the foundations? True: the Founders looked to the promotion of religion, as the end of the literature; but we repeat, this must not be interpreted to mean, the exclusive advantage of the Protestant Episcopal Church, which they certainly did not design to favor. In fact, to enforce on Fellows the ordination of the English Church, really thwarts the literary objects of many of the Founders; for, so strongly does that form consecrate men to the work of pastors and preachers, that many conscientious persons are afterwards unable happily to devote themselves to a literary or scientific life. (2) But even waiving these arguments, our Author is wholly without justification, in inferring, that, if the Colleges be an Ecclesiastical (by which he means a Clerical) organ, therefore the Universities are. The Universities have a Theological Faculty: the fact itself proclaims that the other Faculties are not clerical; and such is notoriously the case: nor does mere admission into the University impose on the laity the obligations of the clergy. Now the Laity outside of the Universities do not subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles; yet they are not the less in the Church: our Author however throughout speaks as if the Clergy alone constituted the Church. But once more: the Universities receive civil privileges of various kinds from the State, because it is for the public good to have the higher classes well educated. It is the duty of the State to secure especially to all public men, (whatever their religion,) access to the best education which the Age can afford otherwise the public interests will assuredly suffer. iversities exist for the good of the nation; not for the convenience of those who frequent them; and Parliament watches over them as Trustee for this end. For the State to insist on the beneficial management of the Universities, is one thing: to desire a new appropriation of College funds, is another. It would be better to throw into the sea all the College Property, than allow it to do mischief to the Universities. The private persons, who (doing as they would with their own) charitably left money to be paid to poor clerks, under conditions imposed by themselves, did not intend to become, what they had no right to be, UniversityLegislators and if ever the Crown and Parliament should be of opinion that the University System needs enlargement and improvement, it is absurd to reply, that this must not be done, because of the wills of such and such College Founders. The historical fact is, that the College-Fellows have stept into a place of University-power never intended for them. To reestablish the University in absolute independence of the Colleges, would be legally just: but it would be rending the whole system to pieces; a measure of violence which I hardly think any wellinformed person could desire or approve. On the other hand, if the State leaves the Colleges in possession of University-power, this at once constitutes in the State both a right and a duty, to enforce such an alteration in the College-Statutes as will secure that the ablest and best men shall be in power over the Universities; and that no vexatious impediment shall exist to their beneficial legislation, impartial administration, extended utility, and to the successful pursuit of all those sciences, which it is for the good of the Nation to have taught at the Universities. If ever it should be proved, that the supremacy of the Clerical order in the Colleges thwarts these most necessary ends; then, I think, a clear case would be made out for the interference of Parliament to abolish that supremacy. (3) But finally, I contend: If we allow that the Colleges are an Ecclesiastical possession; and allow farther, that therefore the Universities are so likewise; it still does not follow that therefore the State ought not to interfere with them: and for this plain reason, that the Church of England, so far as it is an Established |