chapter or book; and the German critics must thus be honourably absolved. Was it, on the contrary, a culpable act of sceptical curiosity? Then are academic tests of no security against the inroads of a restless exegesis.-On either alternative, the Advocate's argument is null.

Again, the German divines are denounced by him for maintaining, "that the Pentateuch was composed out of different fragments which were collected together." He cannot surely be unaware that Dr Marsh, Bishop of Peterborough, and present Margaret Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, maintains, after Eichhorn, that the first three Gospels " are composed of fragments which were collected together." In both cases the difficulty of reconciling such an hypothesis with an orthodox theory of inspiration is identical; but how different in religious importance are the two series of books!-The dilemma is manifest; and on either horn the Advocate is equally impaled.

It is known to all who know any thing of modern divinity, that the theological writings of Eichhorn, especially his Introductions, concentrate in the highest degree all that is peculiar and most obnoxious in the German school of biblical criticism, -of which, in fact, he was, while living, the genuine representative, and distinguished leader. Now, Lloyd, late Professor of Hebrew in Cambridge, circulated proposals for translating the boldest of Eichhorn's Introductions,-that to the Old Testament; and Bishop Marsh, in his Lectures on Divinity, addressed to the rising clergy of the University, once and again recommends, in the strongest terms, the same work to their study; neither, throughout his whole course, does he think it necessary to utter a single word of warning against the irreligious tendency of this, nor, as far as we remember, of any other production of the German divines. And, be it considered, that, whilst he peculiarly affects an ultra-Anglican orthodoxy, the Bishop's knowledge of German theology is of a very different character from that of those who have been recently so busy in giving us the measure of their modicum of knowledge and understanding on this important subject. Indeed, with the exception of Mr Thirlwall's excellent Introduction to his translation of Schleiermacher on St Luke, (he might have chosen, we think, a fitter work,) and some parts of Mr Pusey's book, the public had, in every point of view, far better be without all that has recently appeared in this country, in regard to the result of Protestantism in Germany.

་

224

But in reference to our argument:-If men in the situations, and with the authority of Lloyd and Marsh, endeavoured thus to promote the study of Eichhorn and his school among the academic youth; either the opinions of the German Divines are not such as the Advocate and others have found it convenient to represent them; or (quod absit!) these opinions are already throned in the high places of the English Universities and Church, in spite of the very oaths and subscriptions which it is argued are necessary in order to exclude them.*

* [But of the value of Oath and Subscription in Oxford and Cambridge, I have elsewhere spoken in the previous and ensuing articles.]

VIL-ON THE RIGHT OF DISSENTERS TO ADMISSION

ITNO THE ENGLISH UNIVERSITIES.

(SUPPLEMENTAL.)

Commento

길

(JANUARY, 1835.)

1. Speech of Henry, Lord Bishop of Exeter, on occasion of a Petition from certain Members of the Senate of Cambridge,

presented to the House of Lords on Monday, April 21, 1834, 8vo. London: 1834.

2. Substance of a Speech delivered in the House of Commons on Wednesday, March 26, 1834, by Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Bart., in reference to a Petition from certain Members of the Senate of the University of Cambridge. 8vo. London : 1834.

THE opponents and supporters of the recent measure for restoring the English Universities to their proper character of unexclusive schools, may pretend indifferently to the honour of having argued their cases in the worst possible manner; and in the cloud of pamphlets, (we have seen nearly thirty), and throughout the protracted discussions in Parliament, which this question has drawn forth, the reasons most confidently urged by the former, are precisely those which, as suicidal, they ought especially to have eschewed; and these same reasons, though cautiously avoided, as unanswerable, by the latter, are the very grounds on which the necessity not only of this, but of far more important measures of academical reform, were to be triumphantly established. So curious, in fact, was the game at cross purposes, that

the official defenders of things as they are in Oxford and Cambridge do, on the principle of their own objection to this partial restoration of the ancient academic order, call out for a sweeping overthrow of the actual administration of these establishments; and we are confident of proving before the conclusion of the present article, that, unless apostates not only from their reasoning on this question, but from their professions of moral and religious duty, we have a right to press into the service, as partisans of a radical reform in Oxford, (besides the Chancellor of that University, his Grace of Wellington,) the Bishop of Exeter, and Sir Robert Inglis themselves. From the general tenor of their politics, but in particular from their personal relations to this University, (the one its representative, the other long a member of its collegial interest,) these eminent individuals were the natural, and on the late occasion, the strenuous, champions in Parliament of the party now dominant in Oxford;-indeed so satisfied do they appear with their own achievements in the debate, that they, and they only, have deemed their principal speeches, in opposition to the Dissenters' claim, of sufficient consequence to merit publication in a separate form.

In the article on this subject in our last Number, we were compelled to omit or hurry over many important matters.-One portentous error, common to both sides, we indeed (for the second time) exposed, that the English Universities are the complement or general incorporation of the Colleges;—an assumption and admission, from which the partisans of exclusion were able legitimately to infer,-that, as the constituent parts were private or exclusive foundations, the constituted whole could not be a national or unexclusive establishment.-There was, however, another not less important error, on which we could only touch; and în regard to the argument attempted to be drawn from the injustice of interfering with trustees in the faithful exercise of their duty, so confidently advanced by Dr Philpotts and Sir Robert Inglis, we merely stated, in passing, how gladly we joined issue with them on the principle; and now proceed in supplement of our previous paper, to show, that, when fully and fairly applied, this principle affords a result the very converse of that anticipated either by those who so rashly brought it to bear upon the question, or by those who allowed it to pass without even an attempt at rejoinder.-The following is the argument as pointed by the two Oxford advocates:

The Bishop of Exeter." My Lords, it is, I apprehend, an admitted principle, that where a corporation has received its charter for a specific purpose, the law of England repels, and the legislature of England has hitherto repelled, every attempt to break in upon that corporation, except on an allegation either that its members have omitted to perform the duties for which they were incorporated, or that the purposes for which they were incorporated were originally, or have been declared by subsequent enactments to be illegal, immoral, or superstitious.

"Such, I will venture to say, is the principle of the law of England in respect to corporations; and even if a lawyer could devise any plea in derogation of it, I am quite sure that there is no Englishman of plain understanding who would not proclaim his assent to the reasonableness of that principle. Now, is it, can it be alleged, that either of the universities, or that any of the colleges within them, have violated the duties of their corporate character, or that they have abused the powers intrusted to them for the performance of those duties, or that the purposes and object of their incorporation are illegal, immoral, superstitious, or otherwise condemnable? My Lords, no man has ventured, nor will any man venture to say any of these things. On what pretence, then, could Parliament dare-(forgive the word, my Lords; when a man feels strongly, he will not scruple to speak strongly, but your Lordships will not, I am sure, think the word needs an apology, for you would not dare to do what is wrong ;)—on what pretence, then, I ask, would Parliament dare to set a precedent, which would destroy every thing like the principle of property as connected with corporations, and would violate all the sacredness that belongs to oaths-ay, my Lords, the sacredness of oaths? I say this, because it must not be forgotten, that the members of the University of Orford have sworn that they will obey their statutes, and I doubt not they will keep that oath inviolate. Parliament may have the power to destroy these bodies, but Parliament has not the power-and, if such a thing shall be attempted, Parliament will find that it has not the power-to make these illustrious bodies faithless to the sacred duties which they have sworn to discharge. My Lords, the University of Oxford I know well-many of my happiest years have been passed within it-and from that knowledge of it I speak, when I proclaim my firm conviction, that if both houses of Parliament shall pass the bill which has been brought into the other House, and if his Majesty shall, unhappily, be advised, and shall yield to the advice, to give to it the royal assent-you will not at Oxford find a man-certainly very, very few men, who would not submit to be penniless and homeless, to be outcasts on the world, rather than do that which they now, it seems, are to be required to do—to be parties to the desecration of what they hold to be most sacred, and to the destruction of what they deem to be most valuable in this life, because it is connected with the interests of the life to come."—(Speech, &c., p. 11, &c.)

Sir Robert Inglis.-" The honourable and learned member for Dublin contends, that as the legislature interfered once with the Universities, it has a right to interfere again; but I put it upon the score of common honesty and honour, whether any gentleman in private life would sanction the principle of taking back a gift because you happened to bestow it? Tell