at present there is no school. Nothing, indeed, which deserves that name can be said to have erected itself in the University. There is no body of men who have united to work out this new problem, and regenerate the country after their own fashion. The spirit of inquiry which, like a higher wave than ordinary, is beating up against our ancient landmarks, is at work in Oxford as it is elsewhere. A dislike to be confined to the well-beaten thoroughfare, on which the Church of England has been content to walk hitherto, and found it to be a highway of peace and holiness, is painfully manifesting itself amongst gownsmen of various classes. But when we contrast this sort of solitary and spasmodic action which convulses a man here and there with the movements of Tractarianism, in which there was a certain well-understood concert, agreement, and determination to go forward, perhaps at first without exactly knowing in what direction, the difference is most important. In the mean time, there is, as far as we have heard, no systematic change in the teaching of the Lecture-rooms, or in the Professorial chamber. German criticism has attractions for many minds, but German heterodoxy, as to the great doctrines of Christianity, has no strong hold on the University mind. And we are perhaps rescued from this depth of ruin, partly by the peculiar course of our University study. It is not, let it be remembered, a University for the study of Theology. It is not a school for the instruction of the sons of the Prophets in those great subjects of the ministry which will by and by occupy their attention. Men, in general, come up to Oxford so imperfectly instructed in those classical studies which are absolutely necessary before the taking of their degree, that the attention of Tutors is almost exclusively dedicated to these subjects; and Divinity, as a science, occupies a comparatively small portion of time or thought. An "Article" lecture; a Catechesis on the New and Old Testament; a series of discourses on the history of the Bible and Prayer Book, is, if we are rightly informed, about the sum total of these professional studies. The Professors' Chairs of course take a somewhat wider range, and pursue a more systematic course; and most influential must they be for good, as far as these seats of honour are occupied by faithful men. The candidates for the Ministry attend, before leaving Oxford, one or more of these courses of lectures, on the study of Hebrew, Scripture, Exegesis, or the "Theology" of the Pastorate, or systematic Divinity, and Ecclesiastical History. And many of the Teachers, we are persuaded, are labouring faithfully in their departments. As new ones continue to be appointed, we look with intense interest to see what will be the tenor of their teaching. Hope and fear visit us in turn. We trust that the eminent writer and essayist who now fills the Chair of Ecclesiastical History, over which he has already begun to shed something of the lustre of his richly-stored mind, will be found true to the great doctrines of the faith on which our Christi

anity is built, and for which confessors and martyrs have contended and died. Passages have occurred in his published writings which have given alarm; but we hope that, as he will now have the opportunity to speak with authority, so he will clearly, manfully, and fully, proclaim from his important Chair, the undivided inspiration of Scripture, and so its supreme authority; and that whether it be the authenticity of miracle, or the fact of a sacrificial atonement in substitution for all other schemes of salvation, he has to dilate on, we shall find him confirming the feeble-minded and supporting the weak.

In taking this general survey of the present state of Oxford, we are led to the conclusion, that there is no reason why parents should not send those dear to them as their own heart's blood to the University, and commit them with confidence to its guardianship and teachers. And whilst we must not expect too much, we must resolve to get all we can. Parents of influence and position must make their minds known as to their sons as soon as they enter them in the University. They must show that, though at a distance, they are in the habit of scrutinizing with an anxious eye its highways and byeways. Tutors and Heads of Colleges should feel that young men-the lads of our public and private seminaries -are still watched over from the sanctuaries of their own pious homes. Affectionate intercourse should be kept up, and that influence exercised which is more or less felt, however little it may be acknowledged, by the educational staff which is plying its labours there. Much will depend on the next ten years, whether the religious tone of Oxford is raised or sunk; whether the clouds which are drifting across us, either from or in their passage to other quarters, shall settle down with a heavy blight, or shall roll away, leaving "the clear shining after rain" to take its place.

All this must, in a measure, depend upon the supply of welldisposed and decided, as well as scholar-like men, who are given us by the country. We want many other things, as I know; but the two changes we conceive to be highly important, are the dissolution of the present Common Room, and the liberty given, as in Dublin, with the happiest effect, to Fellows to marry. Much again will depend on the vigour, ability, and faithfulness with which, whether in the country or the University, the errors rising in and out of the University are met. Let men of God prepare for the struggle. Let them think well, and read widely, on the two great subjects to which I have adverted above-the inspiration and authority of Scripture, and the true doctrine of the Atonement. Let us not underestimate our dangers. Wherever the head of the hydra presents itself, let us, in the name of our Great High Priest, prayerfully and faithfully come forward to the attack. A question is sometimes asked, whether young men going to Oxford must not be greatly disturbed in seeking the ministry, by the unsettled state of opinion on these points in the University?

Our impression is, that opinion is far less unsettled in Oxford than in some other places. If a young man enters the University with full purpose of mind to devote his time to the studies of the place, and gives his spare moments to a Sunday-school or to the poor; if he searches for godly, praying, and humble young men as his companions, and makes his wants known, such men are to be found. He must be content, indeed, to take up his cross; he must not be surprised to hear a hard word now and then levelled against a Bible Reading or Missionary Association, or a Prayer Union, or a Sunday School Teachers' Meeting; but he may find a healthy atmosphere for the breathings of his spirit, though it will be less popular and more narrowed. We could not help thinking, at the Church Missionary Anniversary in London this year, that Oxford men, while they have to blush for many things, might well be thankful for her representatives in that assemblythe Bishop of London, in his virgin address, insisting on the value of a spiritual and missionary ministry; the Bishop of Carlisle speaking with the earnestness of an Apostle; two Missionary Bishops, from the extreme East and West, delivering their simple and unequivocal testimony to the truth of God; and a clergyman from the country, of power and piety, a class-man, and the successful Prize Essayist of the University in his day. What we seem especially to want in Oxford is earnestness and vigour. There is no religious Association or Society to which Fellows and Tutors manifest any strong interest. They may, indeed, exhibit more life in their country parishes; but in Oxford they are motionless as statues. Even University Sermons, which might claim their presence, one would think, for example's sake, exhibit a poor attendance. Much less do Religious Meetings call them forth in any numbers. Some, perhaps, absent themselves from the pressure of University work; but many more, we fear, from indifference to the object, or from a morbid fear of being associated with "a party. a party." This, indeed, is one of the "street cries" of Oxford in 1857-" We must be of no party;" and it is one which is more or less connected with the latitudinarian phase through which the country is passing. Either it is an evidence of that cowardice which prompts men to hide their real opinions, or it is the fruit of general indifference to creed and confession. It is, indeed, an easy course to saunter through life agreeing with every body; but it brings men into strange company, and reduces society to a strange compound. Honesty, manliness, the Holy Volume, all require something more of us. If we cleave to Christ, we must cleave to those who live the nearest to Him, and who most faithfully reflect His image. The cold-hearted may dub us, in the phraseology of the world, as party men; but for all this, we need not be men of a party spirit. And this is the great problem to solve,-How to be faithful, and yet loving; decided in our own course, and yet tolerant of others who differ from us.

And now, Sir, let me say how deeply sensible I am of having, in the preceding, offered but a most inadequate view of a large subject. But I shall be glad if enough has been said, at once to dispel unwarranted fears, and to awaken a spirit of caution, earnestness, and prayer. I have said more of Oxford than of Cambridge. "Far be it from me," however, as old Fuller says, (writing as a Cambridge man,) " to make odious comparisons between Jachin and Boaz, the two pillars in Solomon's temple, by preferring either for beauty or strength, when both of them are equally admirable. Wherefore, I presume, my aunt Oxford (Cambridge) will not be justly offended, if in this book I give my mother the upper hand, and begin with her history. Thus desiring God to pour His blessing on both, that neither may want milk for their children nor children for their milk."

OXONIENSIS.

A MEETING OF THE CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY. To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

You have more than once referred to a question, raised by Dr. Biber in the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, as to the issue of a Bible by the Society, with such corrections in the margin as have been supplied by the improved scholarship of the last two centuries. You may or may not have heard, that after some delay, arising out of the honourable desire of Dr. Biber not to introduce the subject on a day inconvenient to others who were likely to be specially engaged on the first Tuesday of the previous month, the question was discussed at a very full board of the Society, and his motion rejected by an immense majority.

It may interest your readers to hear a little about that Meeting; and for the sake of this, they may be willing to receive a few comments on the topic under discussion from an unknown hand.

The Meeting was, on the whole, an amusing one. Dr. Biber proposed his resolution at considerable length, dwelling much on two points, which might, I think, have been taken for granted,viz., first, that it was the duty equally of societies and men to supply to their neighbours the most correct possible copies of the Word of God; and secondly, that the two centuries which have intervened between our own days and those of King James' Translators have shed a certain amount of light on some dark or doubt, ful passages; and he then proceeded to show that the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge were not only the fittest Editors of a corrected edition, but that they were pledged as the "keepers and witnesses of Holy Writ," to proceed to the dis. charge of this important office. It was, of course, obvious to reply, as a gentleman who subsequently addressed the Meeting did, that CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 235. 3 M

the Church, and not the Society, was "the keeper and witness of Holy Writ;" and that to raise the Society to such a seat of authority was to force her into a position to which she had no pretensions. And nothing, in my judgment, can be more preposterous than to instal a Voluntary Association into the office of the Church, or, as practically considered, of King, Lords, and Commons, in this country. Convocation, with the sanction of the three orders of the State, is the only fitting instrument for any Version which is to be substituted for the Authorized Version of the country.—It was curious enough that Dr. Biber, in touching upon a translation of St. John, lately put forth by five well-known scholars and divines, quarreled with a large number of their modest changes, and especially with their verbosity, thinking that about 240 words might be substituted for above 400 of the translators'. I could not help thinking, at the moment, what a happy specimen such a statement presented of the probable harmony or unanimity of a model Committee, constructed after Dr. Biber's pattern for Scriptural revision. Suppose him in the chair, as the bringer-in of a Bill often is, and the five translators (and who more worthy ?) to be on the Committee, what must have been his opening address ?"Gentlemen, I must begin by announcing my intention to knock "on the head one-third of your corrections, and substitute twelve "of my own, and must beg utterly to protest against your super'fluity of language." With such an opening, what might be expected to follow ?-It was, I believe, with profound astonishment the Committee heard Dr. Biber announce, that, in his marginal corrections, he should be indisposed to pay much regard to articles, as we understood them, and not particles, as quoted by a Reverend gentleman, and other grammatical trifles which make up about one-half of the parts of speech. Could he mean to include the definite article in this category? Such an announcement would have been almost enough to rouse poor Bishop Middleton and Dr. Wordsworth out of their graves.

Dr. Biber was replied to by a member of the Standing Committee; and then two or three other addresses were made on both sides of the question. The Motion was negatived by a large majority; and was then, as I trust, consigned " to the tomb of the Capulets" for ever.

Having thus, for the sake of our country cousins, given my narration, I beg to offer a few observations on the real topic to be discussed, viz.-" Whether a body of translators is likely to be found, in or out of the Society, who are likely to surpass the translators of King James?" I think not. In the days of that would-be philosophical monarch, Bishops and Deans and Presbyters had comparatively little to do; and their most intense desire and primary object were to secure a correct translation of the Volume, so lately rescued from the grasp of Popes and Cardinals. But where are the forty-seven men to be now found with