keep his terms, under the domestic instruction and superintendence of its tutors. Why not simply repeal this statute, and allow unattached members to reside in the town, under proper regulations, and let all public appointments, degrees, and exercises, be free from religious tests? The principle of separating the colleges as private subordinate institutions from the University as a public national institution for the purposes of general instruction, and the cultivation of the several departments of literature and science, contains within it the essential consideration on which all measures for the admission of Dissenters depend; and in this consideration all the practical obstacles in the mode of effecting the object are involved. If the principle of legislative interference with the Universities as national institutions be once established, all minor difficulties will soon disappear.

Mr. Sewell's object, in his first pamphlet, is to maintain exactly the opposite opinion to ours. His main argument turns upon the impossibility of allowing Dissenters to exist in Oxford, because it would be contrary to the most solemn and conscientious obligations of Church of England fellows and tutors, who would be in duty bound to use every effort to convert them; and, failing in this, to expel them. This is the very principle of the Inquisition; but we were not prepared to expect, that in the Church of England, and in the middle of the nineteenth century, there could be found a minister of Christianity to proclaim it. Yet the author has considerable kindness and affection for Dissenters; so, at least, he intimates in several passages.

We decline examining that part of Mr. Sewell's first pamphlet which is purely theologico-political, and relates to the claims of a state-establishment; we confine ourselves to those portions of his Letters which refer to the question of the admission of Dissenters to the Universities, with which alone, according to the plan of this Journal, we have properly anything to do. Mr. Sewell's argument throughout his first pamphlet is simply this: these things cannot be altered, because the University system is so, and therefore ought to be And the point principally insisted on is, that it is essentially a religious system, and therefore the admission of Dissenters is impracticable, even were it desirable; that is, because the sons of churchmen must be taught the doctrines of the church, as an essential part of their education, therefore the sons of dissenters cannot be taught anything. The tutors are necessarily members and generally clergymen of the church, therefore, no dissenter could conscientiously place his son under them. We imagine the dissenters might at least be allowed

So.

to express their opinion on this point: if they see no difficulty in it, who shall object to it? But why must all tutors necessarily be clergymen, or even churchmen ?-because the statutes ordain it :—and the statutes are unalterable.

After these views, it was hardly necessary for the author to make such a confession as he has done (p. 72) :—" We are not yet indeed political economists: we have not yet learned to consider man as an arithmetical counter: we have not raised ourselves so far above the mists of old prejudices," &c. And again, "We study logic, in a very humble way; and certainly, our examples of reasoning are at times rather ludicrous and striking."

We feel no inclination to go more into the detail of the argument of Mr. Sewell's first pamphlet; the general character of it we have shown. We are not convinced by it ourselves, nor do we think it will convince anybody else, except those who are already of Mr. Sewell's own opinion.

We are ready to admit the real difficulties inherent in the details of any plan for the admission of Dissenters, arising out of the actual system of the University of Oxford; but these difficulties are not merely the subscriptions and declarations. If these were wholly done away, there remains the Chapel system, which in Oxford is regarded as an essential part or instrument of college discipline; next, the religious instruction, which is regularly given, at least in form, and regarded as an equally essential part of the tutorial course of instruction; then there is the examination in the rudiments of religion, considered to be the most essential part of the examination for the degree of B.A.; and lastly, there is a sort of general recognition of religion as the leading principle in all university institutions and forms whatsoever. All this is independent of the particular tendency to religious intolerance which may arise from the exclusive and proselytizing spirit of individual tutors, of whom, perhaps, few are so zealous as Mr. Sewell. And lastly, there is the general ascendency of church principles, which will probably long remain, from the mere superiority of numbers, even supposing all exclusive statutes and regulations to be set aside. We do not deny that difficulties. might occur as to the best mode of modifying the statutes, so as to accord with the more complete efficiency which would thus be given to the university system, and we admit that the ascendency last spoken of, might always be obnoxious in the eyes of dissenters; but we contend that the prospect of such difficulties and objections ought never to hinder any truly liberal man from perceiving the justice of the dissenter's claim to APRIL-JULY, 1834.

G

admission, from earnestly wishing and desiring the accomplishment of that object, or from using every effort to secure it partially, if it cannot be obtained wholly; at least to remove as many objections as possible.

As Mr. Sewell's pamphlet may not be in the hands of all our readers, it is only fair that we should give a few specimens of his style of reasoning :

'So long then as we regard religion and Christianity as parts of our morality and instruments of our correction (and when they cease to be so regarded, I know not what value they retain), so long the slightest article of faith connected with any such view must be to us necessary and essential. We can admit of no compromise, no latitude, no comprehension, no indulgence in acts, whatever may be our indulgence in thought. And therefore, when young men are brought here and placed in our hands for education, we wish to make them not merely learned, but good; not merely good, but religious; not merely religious, but Christians; and not merely christians, but Churchmen.'

Churchmen, according to Mr. Sewell, are something more than Christians.

'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?'

Certainly not: Mr. Sewell has already told us he will admit of no compromise, no latitude,' &c.

'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.'

A reluctance to allow discussion is not a very favourable symptom of the love of truth. If Mr. Sewell's religious opinions are true, they can sustain no harm from discussion.

'But if their conversion is prohibited, we will not consent to take the charge; we will not affect to educate when the great end of education is excluded; we will not pretend to control when the great engine of control is taken from our hands.' (First Letter, p. 19.) То 6 say we will not' is somewhat bold. Put the possible case that the law of the land were to require it: what would you do then?

An answer to this question seems to be in some degree given by the following manifesto, which has been just put forth, (April 24th,) and in a few days received the signatures of nearly all the resident tutors, and many professors, and other graduates.

'We, the undersigned Members of Convocation, having read the following Declaration, which is now in course of Signature by those who are immediately connected with the Instruction and Discipline of the University of Oxford, are anxious to express our approval of the same, and the concurrence of our feelings and opinions with those which are therein so seasonably and suitably expressed.

"The undersigned Members of the University of Oxford, immediately connected with the instruction and discipline of the place, make this public Declaration of their sentiments concerning the admission of Dissenters among them.

"They wish to state in the first place, that the University of Oxford has always considered Religion to be the foundation of all education; and they cannot themselves be parties to any system of instruction which does not rest upon this foundation.

"They also protest against the notion, that Religion can be taught on the vague and comprehensive principle of admitting persons of every creed. When they speak of Religion, they mean the doctrines of the Gospel, as revealed in the Bible, and as maintained by the Church of Christ in its best and purest times. They also believe in their consciences, that these doctrines are held by the Church of England as settled at the period of the Reformation; and as on the one hand they cannot allow these doctrines to be suppressed, so on the other they cannot consent that they should be explained or taught in any sense which is not in accordance with the recognized tenets of the Established Church.

In thus stating it to be their solemn duty to provide for a Christian education, they feel that uniformity of faith upon essential points is absolutely necessary; and that the admission of persons who dissent from the Church of England would lead to the most disastrous consequences; that it would unsettle the minds of the younger members of the University; would raise up and continue a spirit of controversy which is at present unknown; and would tend to reduce Religion to an empty and unmeaning name, or to supplant it by scepticism and infidelity.

They therefore deem it their bounden duty to Almighty God, and to those committed to their charge, to continue their present system of religious instruction; and they hereby declare, that it is their determined purpose, to the utmost of their power, to maintain the same inviolate.

We will merely ask what is the meaning of the resolution so firmly maintained in the last sentence? Does it imply a determination to resist the law, if the admission of Dissenters become the law? And in what way is it intended to do this? If the

legislative measure be, in the first instance, so incomplete as to leave the tutors the means of defeating its spirit, of course the only result will be an amended measure in another session. Or, does it mean that, the moment such a measure is passed, they will all, with one consent, give up their tutorships? We hardly think they will do this.

On the following extract we make no comment. We really looked over the passage several times before we could believe our eyes. We looked for connexion with some fortunate if, ' in which there is often so signal a virtue, but we were disappointed. The following are Mr. Sewell's plain, simple doctrines, by which he would govern all the world.

I deny the right of liberty of conscience wholly and utterly. I deny the right of a child to poison itself; the right of a man to ruin himself; the right of a nation to indulge itself in any caprice or madness. I deny the right of heathens to remain in a state of idolatry. I deny the right of atheists to disbelieve in a God. I deny the right of any sect to depart one atom from the standard which I hold to be the truth of Christianity. And I deny the right of any legislative power, of any minister of God, of any individual on earth, to sanction or permit it, without using every means in their power to control and bring them back from their errors.' (First Letter, p. 96.)

In his second dissertation, Mr. Sewell informs us, that to enforce the admission of Dissenters is beyond the power of ministers. But why? From the fear of being left in a minority? Oh no:-but because it rests with the University, and the several colleges contained in it, to exclude whomsoever we choose ;-until some legislative interference compel an entire surrender of our present privileges.' Or, in other words, it is beyond the power of ministers, till it is in their power. This is excellent logic, but the defiance which follows is better: 'history may teach, that such interferences in former times, and on very similar occasions, have not been altogether safe.' But to which party it will not be safe, the author seems not to have yet ascertained. Again; Whether the compulsion come from a single monarch, or a popular assembly, the tyranny is still the same. The country at present is not, I think, quite prepared for any such arbitrary measure.' Such a measure as he alludes to, when it has received the sanction of all three branches of the legislature, cannot surely be considered either arbitrary or tyrannical by such loyal subjects as the University of Oxford contains. By the time this is printed, perhaps the author will have an opportunity of judging how far the country, or one branch of the legislature at least, is prepared for such a

measure.