Φιλοσοφίαν δε ου την Στωικήν λέγω, ουδε την Πλατωνικήν, ή, την 'Επικουρείον τε και Αριστοτελικήν· αλλ' όσα είρηται παρ' εκάστη των αιρεσέων τούτων καλώς, δικαιοσύνην μετα ευσεβούς επιστήμης εκδιδάσκοντα, τουτο σύμπαν το 'ΕΚΛΕΚΤΙΚΟΝ φιλοσοφίαν φήμι. Clem. Alex. Strom. L. 1. LONDON : JACKSON AND WALFORD, 18, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD : W. OLIPHANT AND SON, EDINBURGH: AND MACLEHOSE AND NELSON, GLASGOW : FOSTER, BISBEE, AND CO., NEW YORK. 1841. THE ECLECTIC REVIEW, Ꮃ , FOR JANUARY, 1841. Art. I. 1. Regulations of the University of London on the subject of Degrees in Arts. 2. Examination for Matriculation in the Year 1838. 3. Examination for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in the Year 1839. 4. Examination for Matriculation in the Year 1839. 5. Examination for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts, 1840. 6. Examination for the Degree of Master of Arts, 1840. 7. Report of the Committee of Highbury College, London, 1839, 1840. 8. Report of the Committee of Stepney College, London, 1839, 1840. 9. Report of the Committee of Spring Hill College, Birmingham, for the Session 1839-1840. THE London University commenced its operations in 1838, in matriculation. Since that period it has twice admitted to the Bachelor of Arts' degree, and once to the Master of Arts' degree, so that more than one entire course of examinations has been completed. The senate have wisely resolved to publish from time to time the examination questions, together with the names of those who have been admitted to degrees, or who have successfully contended for honors or scholarships. Its proceedings are thus before the world, and the character of the examinations to which it subjects its candidates, as well as the value of the degrees and honors which it has to confer, can be easily estimated. It is equally impossible either for its admirers and advocates to exaggerate the severity of its examinations or for its enemies to deride them as flimsy and superficial. To attempt the latter, while the examination papers of the London Univer sity continue to be what they have been, would not only betray an utter want of candor; it would impudently contradict the common sense of every one who chooses to take the trouble to nspect them. Of all such calumnies, indeed, they afford an easy refutation. To this subject we shall return after we have made two or three preliminary observations. It is happily no longer needful to canvass the principle on which the new university is founded ; the only wonder is that it should have been necessary to contest it so long. But it is 'better'admitted 'late than never.' The very institution of such a university concedes the principle, that honorable degrees for proficiency in the various branches of science and literature should not be restricted to the advocates of any particular form of religious belief, or confined exclusively to those who are willing to subscribe to a certain set of theological dogmas. One finds it quite difficult to understand by what sort of logic the two things have been connected together, or how the premises have been linked to the conclusion. If the system were rigidly carried out, our lawyers and doctors ought to be subjected to the same conditions; we ought to take no physic but what comes from an orthodox practitioner, nor ask advice in law except from those who have duly signed the thirty-nine articles. There is, indeed, manifest injustice and absurdity on the very face of the system. One would think it as obvious as common sense could make it, that literary degrees ought to be accessible to all who have made the requisite proficiency, and that to defraud them of such honors because they are unwilling to sign the thirty-nine articles, even although they may have made the highest attainments in science or literature, is one of the many forms of petty persecution. The hollowness of the system, so far as its professed objects go, is only equalled by the injustice inflicted on those who are the victims of it. The avowed object is, that science and literature may exert their influence in favor of religion. Now if degrees were withheld from all those who did not show by their conduct that they were under the practical influence of the doctrines which they profess to believe; if it were demanded, not only that the aspirant for a degree should subscribe, but act in conformity with his subscription; if, in a word, an examination were instituted into his moral character and religious habits, in addition to the demand of a formal subscription to a system of speculative belief, there would at least be some consistency in the plan, however erroneous and unjust we might still suppose it to be. But who that is at all acquainted with the doings at Oxford or Cambridge does not full well know that degrees are perpetually conferred on those who have subscribed as a mere matter of form; who have subscribed even what they do not understand, or, understanding, openly declare that they do not believe; who have subscribed as a condition for taking their degree, just as multitudes formerly took the sacrament as a preparation for a political or civil office, while their whole life and conduct loudly give the lie to all their interested declarations, and proclaim that they have no more regard for Christianity than a Mohammedan or a Hindoo. Innumerable acts of perjury and hypocrisy the system may have occasioned, while it has never insured any of the results for which it was professedly instituted. It is attended, moreover, by this additional inconsistency, that while the barriers which it professes to raise against the approach of the irreligious are no barriers at all to the profligate or the unreflecting, it effectually shuts out those who, by the very fact that they will not blindly subscribe to what they do not approve, show that they are upright and conscientious. As in other instances, mere subscription to certain articles, unaccompanied by anything farther, merely tends to exclude the honest man and to let in the knave. It is a system of quarantine which admits the infected and keeps out the healthy; a system of police which contrives to punish the innocent and to encourage the vicious. Purity of life, indeed, and consistency of character cannot be easily counterfeited; they give some trouble, and if the mask is to be worn long, so much trouble that it is cheaper and easier to be than to seem virtuous. If these, therefore, were rigidly demanded, we again say, there would be some sense in the system, although still liable, in our judgment, to unanswerable objections. But mere subscriptions and declarations! Why, every body knows, who knows any thing of the courts of law, that an oath itself can be purchased for half a crown, and that they will go still cheaper if they be ordered by the score at the time. We verily believe that twenty at any time might be obtained for twice the number of shillings. But the intrinsic injustice of the system under any modifications remains precisely the same. In the name of common sense, why should an accomplished scholar be condemned to be destitute of the ordinary testimonials of scholarship, testimonials to which he can make the most ready and easy appeal, merely because he does not belong to the Church of England? It was high time, therefore, that the old universities should be dispossessed of their ancient monopoly of the exclusive manufacture of degrees in arts, medicine, and law, and that some provision should be made for the large and influential bodies who have dissented from the Establishment. Some such step became the more necessary as the old universities had themselves rejected the only compromise that could possibly offer itself that of extending to Dissenters the privileges which are now exclusively enjoyed by those who are willing to sub |