are considered, we doubt whether this dissociation of work is desirable; and, for the Professors themselves, we doubt whether they can deliver course after course on the same subject, term after term, and year after year, without their zeal flagging, or their attention waning; and still greater is the danger of their losing sight of the bearing which their special subject has on the whole training of their pupils.

And, to our minds, there is another difficulty connected with this distribution of the work of teaching. We refer to the want of distinctive character which the teaching will assume. For we confess plainly that we cannot see how any good school can be without a distinctive character; and we are confident that that cannot be a school at all where different opinions upon all subjects are laid before the students, and they are left to pick their way through the confusion around them. If the Heads and Professors deem that such is the ideal of University teaching, and that the regulations, which require the students to attend two or four courses delivered by different Professors, will tend to keep their minds in equilibrium, all that we can say is, that they must be vastly ignorant of the moral and intellectual condition of the majority of their graduates. It seems to us as absurd as to attempt to make men physicians, by calling upon them to study Hydropathy, Homoeopathy, Alloiopathy at once. We have no reason to doubt that the five Divinity Professors at Oxford and the three at Cambridge are tolerably well agreed as to their general principles, but even the characteristics of the individual Professors throw a different phase upon these principles, and to a young student even this is embarrassing unless some one takes the decided lead. But, we repeat, it is not by training the head that influence is gained; the heart has far more sway over the head than the head has over the heart; and that training is in the highest degree deficient in which the heart is neglected. Even when there is some admixture of error in what is laid before the student, there is a wonderful power of correction in the warm feelings and enkindled zeal. If we may so say, the power of Dr. Pusey has been extended over thousands who do not feel agreement with many points of his system; the influence of Mr. Maurice was much dreaded twelve months ago-so much had he gained the love and admiration of his pupils. But now, though his opinions, we are told, have not gained much hold on the students of King's College, the effect of his zeal remains. With Mr. Buddicom at S. Bees', and Dr. Baylee at S. Aidan's, it is the same-it has been the man, not his sentiments, which has worked for good; and so of Dr. Arnold. And if our readers will take the trouble to review those periods of their life in which their opinions, their habits, their character, were forming, they will find that the main influence exerted upon them was either

that of a society, such as their school or college, or else that of some one man. At successive periods different men may have worked upon them; but never different men at the same time. And this is a point which Oxford Boards and Cambridge Syndicates ignore. Apprehending that some one Professor might become popular, and his fellow-workers jealous, they compel the student to attend different courses delivered by different Professors; thus adding to confusion in the mind of the pupil, the dissipation of the influences which should bear on his heart.

But if it be said that this process will help the student to think, we again demur to the remark. We cannot think of subjects of which we are learning the very rudiments. We cannot arrange and compare, if we want materials wherewith to store our minds and our memories. Every one who has taken pains in a lectureroom-every one who has attempted to make the children in his school to think-must know that information must precede comparison. All education commences with faith—with a confiding in the authorities of the teacher. The period when we test the value of that authority must follow; but, if the authority is divided and dissonant, trust there is none, and so there is an end to teaching. We come again, therefore, to our point, that one great bane of Professorial teaching is its want of unity; one advantage of smaller schools of Theology is that very fact which the Professors refer to as a fatal characteristic, viz. one man is responsible for the whole.'

There is, however, one course open to the officers of the Universities, if they would retain the education of the clergy in

It is a great mistake to suppose that a student is a fool who is ignorant, and, therefore, unable to think on particular subjects: people are never fools in the matters with which they are familiar; and all teachers must recognise this fact, or their powers of teaching will be much injured. If our clergy were by a year's or a year-and-a-half's training made more familiar with the truths of Revelation, they would find it more casy to exercise their own minds upon them afterwards, and would be less liable to follow the guidance of a party-leader. It is by constantly laying before our people at Church the great truths of Christianity, that we hope to make them think over and meditate upon them. They compare what we say on one Sunday with what we say on another, and gradually form a more and more sound idea of them.

We are trespassing somewhat beyond our limits when we complain, that at Cambridge all but candidates for honours are forbidden to think. This has been the effect of some unhappy changes introduced into the examination for the Poll some twelve or fourteen years ago. They are compelled to know a little of some ten or twelve subjects; so little that it neither interests nor instructs, neither informs nor educates. So long as 200 men annually come up to Cambridge at the age of eighteen or nineteen, and take their degrees at twenty-two, spending their last year in learning by rote the reason why a lever balances and a pump works; so long as there is no encouragement to obtain a greater knowledge in any one of the multifarious subjects which the Encyclopædists of Cambridge require, so long will that University stand in the way of efficient training for any profession. The student has to learn a number of isolated facts, is never able to compare, and therefore, is nover encouraged to think : his education must begin again.

the hands of the ancient bodies. They must attempt it in their collegiate, not in their academic character. It must be made the work of one of the Fellows of each college, to superintend the reading and training of the candidate. Dr. Cartmell, the Master of Christ's College, looks to this; he writes-"I think that it is within the means of the several Colleges of the University, assisted by the lectures of the Theological Professors, to supply to candidates for Holy Orders such preparation and instruction as they may require.' We do not believe that this would equal the training at Wells; we do believe that it is the only way that the University can do anything really valuable. To the University Professors would be left probably the more difficult and interesting branches of study lectures illustrating the history of the Church, or the early Fathers, or some leading controversies, or the duties, &c. of the parish priest. To the College Tutor would be intrusted the training of character, the charge of the private studies, the care that the students read and profited by the works of our great Divines, that they became conversant with the Articles of the Church, and acquainted with the original of our New Testament, that they were practised in composition and sermon-writing, and perhaps in schools and visiting. Without such collegiate training, we look for no advantage from attendance on additional Professorial lectures.

And should the Colleges of the Universities determine to take a share in this great work of training ministers for the Church, we feel confident that incalculable benefit will be reflected back on those who engage heart and soul in it. Cambridge has certainly advanced much in the last twenty years; the anecdotes collected by the late Mr. Gunning exhibit the vast progress which the University has made in general tone since the commencement of this century. Still every one who has passed from the clerical society of Cambridge to similar society in London, or any large town, or any country place, must have felt that there is a character about the latter in which the former is deficient. And the cause of the difference is not hard to find out. Partly, perhaps, from the frequent recurrence of a certain class of faults-say indolence and irregularity-the consequences of which the College Tutor is not able to trace into future life, he is led insensibly to acquiesce in that, which comes before the parish clergyman as one out of many evils, against which he must struggle manfully, or he is not fit for his post. Partly, again, from the want of experience and knowledge of mankind in the College officer, his mind never has the opportunity of working on those interesting practical questions which daily force tnemselves on the attention of the thoughtful Curate.' He has no difficulties as to servants, tradesmen, friends, neighbours; no

awkward parishioners to deal with; no vestries to meet-everything comes to hand, if he will only give the order.

But if the College were to undertake this work; if under some responsible officer of their society one or two additional Fellows would take part in it; if in addition to the properties of matter, and the facts of geometry, and the niceties of analysis, the truths of Revealed Religion received some share of the attention of men versed in the history and philosophy of the Inductive Sciences; if, again, our classical lecturers were called upon more frequently to bring to bear upon the Old and New Testament, or the History of the Church, and on what we may call the Philosophy of the New Covenant, the knowledge of ancient language and feeling which they have gained, we cannot doubt but that ere long the practical life of Christianity in all its bearings would be felt at the Universities, in a degree of which at present they are scarcely sensible. We feel assured that the complaints will be no more heard which from time to time are whispered in London and elsewhere, that the Universities are unfavourable places for the development of talent; that a fellowship is deemed only a reward for past exertions, but no longer as furnishing the opportunity and incentive to subsequent and more lasting efforts.

But still, however great the advantages may be to the Colleges to have the study of Theology, or rather, as we should put it, the preparation for the ministry of the Church of God, formally recognised as part of their work, we much doubt whether it would be equally to be desired, on behalf of the members of the University, that they should be compelled to reside, and go through a course of instruction after they have taken their first degree. Laying aside other difficulties, such as the facts that because of difference of age the graduates are not all equally near to the time of their ordination, and that with many it will be an object at once to obtain some remunerative employment, we much doubt whether it is expedient that they should be detained in college another year. We have spoken of the influence which a man or a system may have on a character in the process of formation, and that at one and the same time it is expedient that one influence mainly should be brought to bear. But by no means do we imply by this, that at successive periods of life different influences may not work most advantageously. And so, whatever others may say, it is our opinion, that to one who has spent three years and a half at Oxford or Cambridge, the change from the mixed society of the University, its boisterous sports, its unbending rules and regulations, its Proctors, its gate-bills, its wine-parties, to the more quiet but more varied society of a Cathedral city, and the firm but gentler discipline of a Diocesan College, will be singularly advantageous.

There are periods of life when we are especially called upon to forget those things which are behind, and look forward to those which are before. But the associations of the University are with the past: even he who has stayed up till forty, fifty, sixty years have passed over his head, thinks of his undergraduate days as the days of his University life. The open hearts and warm friendships of those days are most vividly remembered. So we say of the newly-hooded bachelor-the associations of the University are with the past; those of the Diocesan College will be with the future. His schooling ends with the one, his life will begin with the other.

But is there not another class of clergymen which has increased much of late years, to whom the Professors, the Colleges, and associations of the Universities would prove of vast advantage? Is there not a large and increasing body who grudge the four years which must pass over their heads if they graduate at the Universities, and who are therefore compelled to seek for admission at S. Bees' or S. Aidan's? It will not be deemed that we throw slight upon these institutions when we ask, is it likely that the associations with which they are connected will have the same hallowing and mellowing influence on the minds of their students as the buildings, the system, the life of the older Universities would have? For them, therefore, we think it would be as great a boon to be transferred to Oxford or Cambridge, as it would be desirable for graduates of the University to be transferred elsewhere. And the presence of men who had learnt the advantage of business-habits, who had struggled hard through difficulties of circumstances, or of feelings, or of faith, would exercise no prejudicial influence on the feeling and tone of the ancient Universities.1

But there is one question more ere we conclude. What is to become of theology in England if they to whom, by their office, we look to be leaders and generals, are employed in the work of training and drilling the soldiers of the line? Nay, we may ask, what has become of theology? The events and progress of the last few years, the opening of the Continent, the spur given to thought which closer contact with the mind of France and Germany has given, place us in a position different from that which was occupied by the English theologians of last century, or of the early part of this. In the meantime, we have most valuable additions to our libraries on points at issue between

1 The Syndicate, which sat for four years at Cambridge to advise on the change of the statutes of the University, recommended that the degree of Licentiate in Theology should be given to any who entering after a certain age attended lectures for two years, and passed sundry examinations in Theology. The Senate unhappily rejected the proposal.