UNIVERSITY TESTS AND TRAINING.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.
Lincoln's Inn, 1st November 1847.
Stu—Your correspondent "M." attributes to me a confusion between the religions system of our old Unieersities and the means of obtaining conformity to that system by the application of tests, which did not exist in my own mind, but which may have appeared in my letter- partly owing to want of room to enter upon the whole subject, partly to my belief the two subjects are more closely connected than "M." supposes. The system and the means of supporting it are both infected with the fundamental error of attributing far too great an importance to opinion on par- ticular subjects,---an importance warranted neither by the grounds on which that opinion rests, nor by the influence it has upon life.
As to the grounds on which it rests. It is assumed to be the result of free in- quiry, and to be open to further inquiry ; whilst at the same time it is notorious that there are numerous bodies of religious people in England who dissent from those opi- nions on points of more or less importance, that French literature has acquired a bad name with us for decided opposition to them, that the greater part of two genera- tions of the ablest and most serious thinkers in Germany have expressly or tacitly abandoned them, and that similar influences are at work amongst ourselves—not, as in the last century, flattering men's dislike of moral or social restraint, but arguing seriously, and appealing to a love of truth and honesty. I mention these things as matters of fact, to show that the truth of these opinions cannot be a thing so obvious as the University practice implies. As to the influence of these opinions upon life. I am far from going the length of saying that definite intellectual truth on religious subjects is unimportant, or that it exercises no influence on a man's life; if I thought so I should probably be little embarrassed by formulrc : but I do say, and feel sure that "Id. will agree With me, that excellence of moral character and feeling, which of coarse includes intellectual honesty and energy, is so far superior to right opinion on any subject, that a system mast be erroneous which by making a sine qui non of the latter degrades and frequently excludes the former. That this is the operation of tests is obvious: but it is also the operation of other parts of the University system. The formidie in use at compulsory daily service, in which repetition of creeds, amongst others of the Athanasuin, plays so large a part—compulsory attendance at the sacrament—the inculcation of these opinions on every student in divinity lectures; and the necessity of giving the proper answers in the examinations, form so many barriers of just the same nature placed with jealous care round timid and dependant orthodoxy. Such are its de-
, and such the spirit infused into its defenders, that it would be safer for a resident member to put forward a degrading theory of morals, or to live a bad life, than to impugn the truth of any of the historical facts or theological dogmas con tamed in the Church of England formulm. Tests therefbis appear to me to be the most outward and vulnerable points in the fortress. "M." of course thinks them unconnected and useless encumbrances: if he is wrong on this point, his acquies- cence in their condemnation shows that the point of attack is well chosen. When tests are gone there will no longer be the same ready touchstone to apply to these
who are suspected of want of orthodoxy, or who wish to promote change, and, which is more important, there will not be the same strict restraint on the con- sciences of those who are disposed to inquire. As a matter of fact, the effect of the present system in promoting religious feel- ing or moral principle is extremely doubtful The supineness of the Universities daring the last century proves, as Mr. Newman said, not illogically, that it cannot itself preserve or create the required spirit: the spirit may, perhaps, when it is abroad, find special comfort and assistance in such a system, and may receive from it a peculiar direction; but I suspect that compulsory attendance at daily chapel produces with a large proportion of the students little but weariness and vexation; and I am sure that most of them look on divinity lectures as the dullest part of their course of instruction. The most decidedly religious impulse we have lately seen, and which had at one time the effect of producing much devotional feeling amongst the younger part of the University of Oxford, has led its originators out of the narrow limits of the place: similar events have happened before, and will happen again, under a system which seems purposely adapted to exclude all men of original genius and inquiring minds. I am not prepared to give an answer to the abstract question, "How far de- finite opinion bears upon and qualifies character?" nor to the further one which arises out of it "How far religions opinion ought to be made the basis of a system of education? But I think it very clear on which side Oxford and Cambridge err; and it would not be difficult to point out a plan which would materially improve them without depriving those who find comfort in the present system of anything except a monopoly of their advantages. It is to be remembered, too, that our Um- versifies are not merely places of education: they ought to be the head-quarters of science and learning, the leaders of the nation in all matters of speculation. I need hardly ask whether they axe so now.
One word on M.'s last argument. He urges those who dislike the present Uni- versity system to found lecture-rooms themselves, and to leave Oxford and Cam- bridge unquestioned and unchanged to be governed by their founders' statutes. The answer is obvious. We cannot afford to do so. we too have an interest in these places—in their old buildings, their associations with the past, their influence on the clergy, their prestige in the country—which we could not replace with all the wealth of Lancashire. We will not create new endowments whilst there are old institutions which would answer the purpose much better if their wealth and opportunities were properly used. And there is no injustice in altering their sys- tem: there is no spoliation in diverting the property from the intention of the founder. The earth belongs to the living and not to the dead. This is a maxim both of positive and of natural law; and men are permitted to limit the future use of property which has been theirs only for the purposes of public benefit. Pro- perty thus limited becomes therefore public property; and if the wants of the time demand changes in the mode of applying it, the present generation are fully jus- tified in making them. If this were not so, mass ought now to be celebrated in Trinity Chapel and Christ Church Cathedral. Lotus, then, argue the question of change in institutions so national, both in the extent of their wealth and influence and in the countenance shown them by the State, on the ground, not of the inten- tion of a fallible mortal who died centuries ago, but of the wants and circum- stances of living and future generations. F.
Previous page
