192

ART. V.-First Report of the Cathedral Commissioners: Replies from the Heads of Houses and Professors at Oxford and Cambridge. 1854.

ATTENTION is now fairly roused to the subject of the education of the clergy of our Church. Since the commencement of this year, both Universities have been called upon to express their judgment upon plans for improving the theological training of their graduates. The production of these plans is an acknowledgment that the authorities are not satisfied with the existing state of Oxford and Cambridge in this particular; their rejection indicates only that the Convocation at each University were dissatisfied with the particular plans proposed. Since these measures were rejected, the Bishop of Oxford has opened the College at Cuddesden under circumstances which seem to augur a large measure of success. The Cathedral Commissioners have published a Report, from which it appears that they have turned their attention to the advantages of multiplying and reinforcing Colleges such as at present exist at Wells and Chichester. The arguments against such a scheme are boldly and clearly laid down in this same Report, in the remarks of the Heads of Houses and Divinity Professors of both Universities; and the country at large, or rather that part of it which is not led away by the names, but looks to the arguments arranged on either side, is in a better position to discuss and decide upon the question-whether the Universities are adapted to complete the training of all their graduates, or whether this must be wholly or in part handed over to other and differently constituted bodies?

Our readers are aware of the deep sympathy which, from time to time, we have expressed in the success of the Diocesan Theological Colleges. At the risk, however, of repeating some little of that which has already appeared in our pages, we buckle ourselves again to the discussion.

We have said that the Heads of Houses and Divinity Professors of both Universities have generally declared against the institution of Colleges attached to any of our cathedrals. Happily this is not without exception. Three names of note, at least, are appended to some thoughtful remarks on the necessity of such institutions. These names are Dr. Pusey, Dr. Richards, and

Dr. Mill. The letter of the venerated Professor of Hebrew is clear and convincing; and as we have derived no small strengthening of our opinions from its perusal, we shall not hesitate to make free use of it in our subjoined remarks.

Now, let us begin with a survey of the chief objections raised by the University authorities against these Colleges. They may be divided into two classes: (1) such as affect the character of the instruction conveyed; (2) such as bear upon the discipline of the students. Some of the former we will detail at length, that our readers may know the precise difficulties which raise the opposition of the Theological Professors.

1. Dr. Heurtley writes that the standard of instruction in these bodies would be inferior to that in the Universities; the larger bodies naturally drawing to themselves the more able in

เ

structors.

2. He adds, They would have a tendency to foster parties in the Church, according to the influence which might happen to predominate in them."

3. And thus the effect would be, a lowered tone of theology, and a narrowed spirit.'

Similar objections are found elsewhere. Dr. Jacobson modifies the last. He fears,

6

4. If these Colleges are encouraged, we shall have not clergy of the Church of England for all our dioceses, but clergy of 'school A in diocese A, and of school B in diocese B.'

5. Dr. Ogilvie begs that the course of study of all candidates. for Holy Orders may be uniform.

6. Dr. Jenkyns, the late Master of Balliol, and Dr. Hawkins, the Provost of Oriel, see an objection in the concentration of work in the hands of one or two officers of a Cathedral College. They hold that Professors of distinct branches of theology will be by far the most proficient in their several branches.

7. The late Dr. Harington thought that the privacy of the instruction conveyed in these institutions might serve as a veil for unsound teaching.

8. Another Head of a House intimates that one security for 'the wholesomeness and uniformity of its religious teaching,' which the University of Oxford possesses, lies in the fact that most of 'its Professors are appointed by the Crown and by large bodies. ' of electors.'

We have thus grouped together all the objections which relate to the character of the instruction likely to be conveyed in these Colleges, and which compare it unfavourably with that which the Universities afford. We must, however, make some remarks that will assist us in our subsequent discussion.

In the introduction to Mr. Ruskin's Seven Lamps of Archi

tecture,' a saying of Turner's is quoted, 'Know what you have to do, and do it; and the clever, though somewhat eccentric writer, states that failure is more frequently to be attributed to a confused understanding of the thing to be done, than to insufficiency of means or impatience of labour. It would seem somewhat presumptuous in us to tax the élite of the Universities with confusion of mind as to the work they are anxious to monopolise; but how else can we escape the difficulty? They have failed in their attempts at clerical education, that is notorious; the country perceives it, their own officers acknowledge it: yet their means are amply sufficient for the work- at least they say so; and we would not charge them with unwillingness to toil in the cause they have undertaken. We are driven, therefore, to the conclusion, that the Universities have never as yet had clearly before them a sketch of the work they have aimed to execute; or if they have gone so far, they have not duly considered the material they have to work upon, nor how far it can be moulded or shaped by the contrivances they are prepared to apply.

We will consider Dr. Ogilvie's statement first. He says, the course of study should be uniform; that is, all the graduates of the University should pass through the same course, should attend the same lectures of the same Professors, and pass the same examinations; and then he seems to hope that we should have uniformity of teaching in the twelve thousand pulpits of the country. It would be very desirable to have such a result; but we do not see how the imposing of a uniform system' on candidates for Holy Orders will produce it. For let us take a glance round the lecture-room of the Professor-There is the double first,' and there is the unhappy man who was 'plucked' last term; a 'senior wrangler,' and the lowest of the 'extracts; the accomplished classic and the humblest tyro to whom the University can grant a degree. These pupils the Professor sees before him, and he must adapt his lectures to them. Is he lecturing on Church history, how can he proceed? If he details the dry facts as they occurred, in the bare syllabus which alone can catch the attention of the inferior members of his class, how utterly wasted will his efforts be on the disgusted and ennuyé scholar! If he assumes a knowledge of the facts, and in masterly style traces the connexion of event with event, and draws from the stores of the past the lessons of present and eternal value, how completely will the hours of the ignorant hearer be wasted!-the hours which are to him as precious as they are to his more gifted neighbour. And will it not be the same in lectures on the study of Holy Scripture? How is it possible that Dr. Hawkins can adapt his expositions to the mass

of students?

He will either fly over the heads of two-thirds of his class, or disgust and waste the time of the remainder. In the Michaelmas term of 1854, he gave a course of lectures on the Mystical Sense of Scripture; this course occupied the term. Would it not be the height of cruelty for the Bishops or the University to require the attendance at such lectures of the student who doubts whether he can pass an average ordination examination?

And then, uniformity of teaching' seems to imply that the students are as similar in their moral strength and spiritual energy, as in attainments and mental capacity. Dr. Ogilvie allows this; but he takes no account of it. He is not indeed so cruel as his colleague, the Regius Professor, Dr. Jacobson, who would shut out from Holy Orders entirely all those who, feeling themselves unequal to the temptations of the University, desire, under the discipline of a Diocesan College, to form anew habits of steadiness and self-restraint in preparation for their holy work. Those who are looking forward to guide and re'claim others, can hardly (he says) be thought fit for their office, 'if they have not tact to drop a bad acquaintance, or strength of 'mind to alter an unworthy practice.' Yet even S. Paul retired for three years into the wilderness to prepare himself for his work, before he ventured to return to that great city, in which his name was coupled with earlier associations; and in that city he never laboured.

Surely then we may hold it as a fact, that the timid and the strong, the novice and the confirmed Christain, need different treatments; that if two students are equally anxious to devote themselves to their Master's work-the one whose desire has grown with his growth and strengthened with his strength, the other in whom it has been comparatively recently planted; the two students may and should be treated differently. But 'we' (with one voice say the Theological Professors) would mix them together in our class-room, make them all go through the same uniform course: and see how well they will all turn out!' We shall avoid peculiarities of doctrine, and of ritual observance ;' we shall have uniformity of opinion and of feeling;' neither 'low' nor high church' will be heard of again, the low will be pulled up and the high will be cut down, all to the one standard of the Regius Professor of Divinity; and, of course, each and every Professor and his successors to the end of time, must be exactly like the present, because the Professors are mainly (at Oxford, happily not at Cambridge,) appointed by the Crown!

6

6

We must not pause, for there is much more to attract our notice. But will Dr. Ogilvie permit us to ask him, what he thinks men are made of? Are their minds and feelings of the

consistency of potters' clay when it is put on the wheel, as he may have seen it at Burslem or Worcester? We have heard much of materialism of late; is it lurking in high places of the University of Oxford? The Professor speaks of uniformity of teaching he aims at uniformity of sentiment. Now what does uniformity imply? It implies absence of all life; for where there is life there is motion and growth. It implies that it is matter on which you act, and matter by which you act. The only process which we can think of as analogous to that which was in Dr. Ogilvie's thoughts, is one that we recently saw in the manufacturing districts. Quantities of cloth, somewhat stained and discoloured, were passed through bleaching vats, and came out cleaned and whitened. This represents the first set of lectures of the Professors, whereby all preconceived opinions of all their auditors are washed out, discharged,' and their minds presented, as Locke's sheets of paper, to receive all future impressions.' Then the calico is passed over one roller, and receives a brown,' under another, and receives some 'green,' and so on and on, yard after yard, and piece after piece, until it comes out, all beautiful, all harmonious, all uniform; but then it is lifeless, as lifeless as the Professor's students would be, if his process could be brought to produce upon them the effect which he desires.

6

The Church does not want machine-products, nor yet machines. She wants men, living, active, loving men. With these Dr. Ogilvie is not prepared to supply her. The mere listening to sound and sober views of theology, will no more make good clergymen, than the mere listening to good sermons will make good Christians.

But if the Professor would regard his students, not as inanimate clay, but as living branches of the great Vine, he must allow that the course of training may differ to which each branch is subjected. We much doubt whether he has duly considered what the object of this training should be. To us he seems to have lost sight of the end in the means. The trainer of the vine branches will strive that each branch should bear all the fruit of which it is capable. He will modify his treatment according to circumstances. Not so the Professors and Heads of Houses at Oxford and Cambridge. They are anxious to keep up the hold which the Universities have on the country. For this they are anxious to fill their lecture-rooms. They know they ought to have good attendances, and are surprised that they have not. They complain that the Bishops do not enforce the regulations which the University has made. Would it not be better if they looked to themselves and to their work? In no quarter can there be any desire to wrest from them the