beyond dispute that its original design was to afford all possible facilities for the education of those intended for the ministry. But in time its scope was widely extended; for we are told by the most reliable historians of those times, that, at the middle of the thirteenth century, it had no fewer than 30,000 students.* The Church had still more to do with Cambridge; for no king can claim to be its founder. The monks were the first who attempted to establish it, but at a distance of some thirty miles from its present site. In all the records of both the universities there is evidence that their chief design was to prepare students for the ministry, especially poor students, who had not the means to purchase books or secure the aid of competent teachers. In short, no expense was spared from the time of Alfred to that of Henry VIII. to assist clerical students in their course of study, and "to furnish a decent and permanent maintenance for poor men of learning of the clerical order."+ It was with the latter view that Fellows were first appointed, the object of their appointment being that they might have a stipend to support them, until they could secure a benefice, or such other position in the church as they were found best suited for. It is to the honor of Cardinal Wolsey, that, whatever were his faults in other respects, or however fond of amassing money, he did not forget either Oxford or Cambridge, but greatly increased the resources of both, and exercised all the influence he possessed to create a taste for classical studies. If we turn to any other country in Europe that can boast first-class universities, we shall find a similar state of things. The University of Paris was purely clerical in its origin; for several centuries it was known throughout Europe as "the first school of the church." For the Institute, also, which begins where other institutions of learning may be said to end, the civilized world is indebted to a churchman-the illustrious Cardinal Richelieu. Nor does thoughtful and learned Germany form any exception to the rule, for the best of her famous colleges were founded by ecclesiastics of some grade, and chiefly, though not exclusively, for ecclesiastical purposes. The University of Prague, for example, one of the most ancient in Europe (A. D. 1345), was founded by the king of † Huber, vol. i., p. 204. Huber's Hist. of the English Universities. Bohemia, at the suggestion and under the guidance of Pope Clement II., and it was a cardinal legate who induced Charles IV. to enrich the same institution with lands, libraries, allowances for professors, stipends for students, &c., &c. Is the world to appreciate the good work anything the less, because the cardinal, or his master, told the emperor that he would save his soul from the tortures of Pluto by being thus liberal in aiding the cause of education? We only wish that the rulers of the present day could be similarly persuaded. In our opinion, it would be good rather than evil, to teach the Congress of the United States to regard ignorance as a demon, whom it is the duty of every honest citizen to turn his face against. There is, indeed, no want of liberality in this country, either in or out of Congress. This is particularly true in regard to education. The mistake is that little more is required, on the part of our ministers, than to be able to read the Bible in the vernacular, so that they can preach from it with tolerable fluency. There are but few who bear in mind that none are capable of expounding the Scriptures who are not acquainted with the original; the metaphorical expressions in which they abound must be studied in their native garb. Nor is even this sufficient; it is also necessary to have some knowledge of the state of science among the Jews, when the more recent books of the Old Testament were written. It is forgotten that even a modern poem, which is the production of a cultivated and well-stored mind, cannot be understood without due preparation. What ordinary reader, for example, can understand the Divina Commedia of Dante? In order to be able to appreciate, at its true worth, a single canto of that marvellous poem, it is necessary to be acquainted with all the learning of the author's time. This, too, is the reason why there are so few who derive any real pleasure from the perusal of Paradise Lost; and why there are so many, even of those considered learned, who are content to admire that great epic, without ever reading beyond the first book-save, perhaps, a few lines here and there just enough to quote, and show that their admiration is not exclusively founded on hearsay. In short, it must be understood that clerical ignorance is the sure precursor of public corruption. It will not meet the question to say that the clergy have not as much influence in America as they have in Europe. In our opinion, they have quite as much, if not more. In European countries they have indeed more control over the masses than they have here, but it seems to us that here they have more control over the higher classes. Nowhere are the clergy more popular with the ladies than in the United States; and those who are popular with the ladies are not likely to be unpopular with the gentlemen. Let it be admitted, then, that our clergy, of all denominations, possess a great ascendency. The truth is, that this ascendency is the strongest of all worldly inducements to our young men to enter the church; and by this we mean no reproach. The greater the ascendency possessed, the greater the power of doing good; but the greater also the power of doing evil. Let the fullest ascendency be conceded to the clergy, by all means; but let them be qualified to turn it to the best account, for the benefit of civilization as well as religion. Until this is done we cannot be surprised at all we hear of "star" preachers and fashionable churches. The few who happen to possess education and talent will attract enormous audiences, while those deficient in both will have to preach to empty benches-that is, except they are fortunate enough to be young and handsome. In this case they may become the favorites of the ladies; if they can boast of a little talent together with their comeliness of person and youth, they are sure to have the ladies on their side, and then they need have no fear for the rest. But this is a grave defect in itself, and it has its origin in the very evil we are speaking of. A modest lady should blush to avow that she goes to hear a preacher because he is handsome. This is particularly true of a married lady; for who will not think that her butler or coachman, if she has either, would attract her in a similar manner, if equally comely in his person? This would certainly be the natural inference, though such a remark may be made, and doubtless often is, by a woman of the purest mind. It is the habit we are speaking against, not the casual or thoughtless remark of an innocent woman, who merely repeats what she has heard hundreds say. But it is no compliment to the preacher as such; it is rather a satire upon him. We have no account that any one ever went to hear Bossuet, Bourdaloue, Burnet, Hooker, or Berkeley, because he was handsome. Luther, as well as Wolsey and Richelieu, was of opinion that clergymen who are more in favor with women than with men are to be regarded with suspicion, because the fact shows that they pay more attention to the former than to the latter. The Bible tells us all to love our neighbor as ourselves, but nowhere does it say, so far as we can remember, that we should love our neighbor's wife better than the good man himself. A commentator more witty than orthodox has attempted to account for this by assuming that the command to prefer the woman to the man was deemed superfluous by the inspired writers, seeing that it was not addressed to women.* If the Rev. Dr. Miller has said anything bearing directly on this subject, in the volume entitled Letters on Clerical Manners and Habits, which is one of those placed at the head of our article, it has escaped our notice; although Letter XII. is entitled "Female Society, Marriage," &c., and is headed with the text, "Entreat the elder women as mothers, the younger as sisters, with all purity," &c. It may be replied, that he did not think it necessary, or in other words, that he did not suppose clergymen would show any undue favor to women more than to men. But let us see what he does warn them against, and then judge whether this was the cause of the omission. For example, in the table of contents, we have the following summary of Letter III.: "Offensive personal habits-Spitting on floors and carpets-Excessive use of tobacco-Use of ardent spirits-Fondness for luxurious eating -Boisterous laughter-Paring the nails-Combing the hair -Yawning-Pulling at articles of furniture," &c. In the summary of Letter IV., we find such sins as the following: "Excessive silence-Tale-bearing and tattling-Prying into the secrets of families--Propagating ill reports-Rude familiarities," &c. The question is, whether the clergyman whom it is necessary to warn against the use of ardent spirits, tale-bearing, propagating ill reports, &c., is too sanctimonious to pay more attention to the fair sex than his strict duty, as a minister of the gospel, would require. Be this as it may, the fact, that a Professor of Ecclesiastical History, in a theological seminary, feels called upon to write such letters, goes far to prove that our clerical education must be very defective. Young men, thoroughly or properly educated, need not be warned against habits "Il ne faut pas dire aux hommes," says the Abbé de Lécoure, "que les femmes meritent être aimée plus que les autres hommes. La nature leur dite cela," &c. that would be degrading to those who never belonged to any seminary more learned, or fastidious, than the common school. The root of the evil lies in the poverty of our very best theological seminaries. Is not this a reproach to our men of wealth? Our millionaires are liberal enough in contributing to the establishment of lay schools and libraries. Assuming that their chief object in doing so is fame, they could attain it quite as well, if not better, by helping poor clerical students in securing an education that would qualify them for their sacred calling. We might easily illustrate this; but one example will be sufficient-that of Robert de Sorbonne, who founded the college that bore his name-the Sorbonnewhich maintained for centuries the highest reputation of any similar institution in the world, and whose decrees were respected throughout Christendom. So great was the fame of the Sorbonne, that in time the name was extended to the whole theological faculty of the University of Paris. But we do not make the appeal on behalf of any particular sect; although we think it right that those who can best appreciate education should have the preference. Nor would we exclude the Catholics. We should rather remember what they have done in times past; and how much we all owe them accordingly. Of all Protestant sects, the Episcopalians set the highest value on education, and are the most willing to avail themselves of its advantages. The Unitarians rank next, then the Presbyterians; as for the rest, we fear they still regard learning more or less as ART. VII.-1. The Life and Times of Sir Philip Sidney. By MRS. S M. DAVIS. Ticknor & Fields: Boston. 1859. 2. The Works of Sir Philip Sidney, in prose and verse. volumes. Fourteenth edition. London. 1725. In 3 HERE and there, in history, we meet the name of one, whose rare accomplishments and noble deeds so thoroughly gained for him the admiration of the age in which he lived, that he is seldom spoken of, but with praise. All his biogra |