It is more flexible, more worldly-minded, more readily swayed to party purposes, and trained to sanction infringements of popular rights, and screen the abuses of human power. But what know these remonstrants against religious tests of the principles of enlightened liberty? They are ignorant of its very alphabet. They are still in the gall of the bitterness of sectarian prejudice, and in the bonds of the iniquity of priestcraft. Dissenters and Protestants they may name themselves, but practically these are to them but names.

The discussion which must be provoked will, we trust, lead them to the understanding of the things thereby signified. We have pleasure in transferring to our pages the following letter from one too thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Christ, to contend for an act of justice to himself to the exclusion of his neighbour dissident; the freedom he claims for himself he would gladly see enjoyed by all. The letter first appeared in the Morning Chronicle, London newspaper :—

"SIR,-I have lately read, with unmingled pleasure, the liberal resolutions of the Senate of the University of Glasgow, agreed to on the 7th of this month. I have also read, without any particular surprise, but certainly without the smallest conviction, the reasons of dissent agreed to by a minority of the Senate on the 16th inst. Universities always contain some persons, who, however estimable in the small circle in which they rotate, are not possessed of sufficient powers of observation, or perhaps of comprehension, to understand the circumvolutions of that greater world of mankind at large, by which their own uniformity of movement is so apt to be disturbed, and to which they are often surprised to find that it is altogether subordinate. I have no quarrel with those very respectable parties, but I shall take the liberty of handling their manifesto with the freedom which belongs to a British subject, who deprecates its object as altogether unworthy of the year 1843.

"That object is to exclude from offices of the Universities of Scotland all those who cannot subscribe, honestly or dishonestly, to the entire contents of the

Confession of Faith of the Scottish Kirk. It is natural that a party holding an entrenched position of secular advantage should desire to keep it; and it is just as natural that liberal-minded men, and the public at large, should feel a desire to storm their entrenchments, to throw the Universities freely open to all deserving men, and to render these institutions a truly national benefit, and a national property, which they assuredly ought to be.

Any one might easily have anticipated some of the objections of the minority of the Senate from the nature of the object which they had in view. Whenever a proposal is made to nationalise and liberalise an ancient institution, we are sure to hear of the Act of Security, or of the Act of Union, or of the coronation oath, or of all these. Had such arguments been held valid, the Highland chiefs would still possess the powers of separate jurisdiction which they once wielded; the Roman Catholics would still labour under civil disabilities, and the old constitution of the British Parliament would still exist as a matter of conventional arrangement settled between the two kingdoms by our forefathers, and too sacred to be touched by the reforming hands of their successors. But this would have been a narrow and most incorrect view. It is quite obvious that neither the Act of Security, nor the Act of Union, nor the act imposing the coronation oath, could possibly deprive subsequent generations of their constitutional right to examine the institutions of the country, and to alter and amend them, so as to suit them to the altered circumstances of the people. The views which the minority of the Senate have taken of the Act of Union would have been altogether repudiated by our ancestors in 1707. 'We are not only entitled," they tell us, "but bound to demand that the Church of England, as established previous to 1707, shall be maintained in its purity and integrity, and in its full connection with the English Universities; and in like manner the people and Church of England have a direct interest in the maintenance of the Church of Scotland as by law established, and the preservation of its influence over the educational establishments of

6

the country.' This is an excellent plan for the preservation of the University monopolies to the two churches, but it ill accords with the spirit of the document for the continued subscription of which the minority contend; which, as is well known, places Popery and Prelacy in the same category, as things to be reprobated and condemned. The two countries were undoubtedly bound not to attempt the forcible subversion of each other's religious institutions, but were surely not bound to protect those institutions against salutary changes demanded by the wishes of the people and the circumstances of the times. It is in vain, therefore, formally to tell us that the jurisdiction of the Church over Universities and professors, in respect of their morals and avowed opinions, is founded on law.' The law of Britain is not unchangeable, like that of the Medes and Persians. On the contrary, Parliament exists for the express purpose of altering, amending, or it may be cancelling laws which have had their day. It would be far more to the purpose if these gentlemen could prove to us that the jurisdiction of the Church over the morals' and opinions' of professors was founded in' common sense, and productive of benefit. Jurisdiction over opinions!-why, the very expression shows that the worthy gentlemen are at least two centuries behind. They should have lived when such jurisdiction was in accordance with the feelings of mankind, not in these degenerate days, when those who have the legal right still to practise it are afraid to do so, because of the universal scorn and indignation which the attempt invari. ably provokes.

6

"But it is not upon statute alone that the minority of the Senate found their objections to the resolutions of the majority. They tell us, that men who are hostile to the Establishment, or bound by their creed to labour for its subversion,' will be admissible to chairs. What a dreadful thing to think of such persons teaching phy sic, or botany, or chemistry, or natural philosophy! If sincere in holding those tenets, they must even unconsciously and unintentionally betray such a leaning to them as will produce all the effect which is attendant

on their authority over the minds of their pupils.' The fact, alone, of their holding peculiar tenets must produce a bias in their favour in exact proportion to the talents and eminence of the professor. At any rate, such avowed indifference to religious distinctions, on the part of the University and the Legislature, cannot fail to produce a general indifference and contempt for all religion, and especially to undermine the religious principles and practice of the rising generation.' The whole tone of these and other parts of the document issued by the minority, shows clearly that they have no idea of there being any possibility of the slightest tincture of error mingling with their own belief, or of there being any securities at all for truth except those to which they are accustomed to trust, viz. acts of the Legislature, and the jurisdiction of the church courts. Such securities seem to unprivileged persons somewhat inadequate in an age in which men speak their thoughts plainly, and look with just suspicion on all attempts to influence their belief by appeals to their interests or to their fears. I must confess myself among the number of those who are of opinion that an avowed indifference, or what I should prefer terming impartiality, in regard to religious distinctions on the part of the University and the Legislature,' so far from being calculated to undermine the religious principles and practice of the rising generation,' is precisely the correct attitude for the University and the Legislature to assume, and is only calculated to undermine,' on the part of the rising generation,' that supercilious arrogance towards those whose faith is not according to the Established Presbyterian model, which they might otherwise run some risk of imbibing from the instructions of certain professors.

6

"But are the minority certain that men of different creeds, or even infidels, have been excluded from our Universities by the agency of the present system? I have good reason to know that they have not. Many are the stories told of subscriptions by professors. Does that contain your faith, doctor?" Oh yes, and a great deal more." Pray, doctor, have you read the book?' No; does the Act require me to read it?

I know I must sign it." These stories, which are pro-bably genuine, may serve to show the spirit which this practice engenders. A talented professor, not now living, when talking with me on the subject said, "My religion is founded upon act of Parliament." Upon this I inquired whether if he were translated to a Turkish University he would have any objection to accommodate his faith to a similar authority there. He replied with caustic humour, and without a moment's hesitation, "Not at all." Away, then, with the notion that it is possible by such means to protect religious truth! It is a notion only fit for the doctors of the Sorbonne and the infallible church. Christian truth made head against all the powers of the state for three centuries, and is as independent of state patronage now as it was then. Conviction is the only basis of sincere profession, and conviction cannot be produced by tests and disqualifications, though hypocrisy undoubtedly If tests were altogether abolished, it is to be hoped that patrons would not choose infidels to teach divinity, or immoral men to teach anything; and that the lawyers would find a remedy applicable to the case of a professor who should substitute an attack on Christianity, or even upon the Established Church, for a lecture upon chemistry or natural philosophy.

often may.

"It is impossible to tell how much of that "general indifference and contempt for all religion," which the dissentients consider to be a likely consequence of the proposal of the majority, has really been produced by those subscriptions of which they are the professed advocates. Truth of all sorts must either rest on evidence or on authority. If subscription to a confession of religious faith be so necessary on the part of a professor of logic, law, surgery, anatomy, or natural philosophy, why should we not get up confessions of faith in all these sciences to be subscribed by the professors of divinity? In composing those confessions, we should have great advantages over the Westminster divines; for, in the first place, the world has grown older by two centuries; and, secondly, there is not at present a war raging, as there was then, between the Sovereign and the Parliament. Seriously, I see no more danger to

B