Permit me to add, that you and I have great need to watch and pray, lest we enter into temptation. To be the subjects of reproach, to be suspected, represented, or denounced as the enemies of Christ, by those who profess to be his followers and his ministers, is indeed painful. But it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. I think I have learned from experience that I feel the most comfort when I feel most disposed to put as favourable a construction as possible on the conduct of those who appear unfriendly; and to pray for those who reproach and defame. The more pity I feel for them, the more peace I possess in my own breast. It is but a criminal pleasure that we can take in rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling. But we approach to a divine pleasure when we can pray as Christ did on the cross, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." To this pleasure, my friend, I believe you are not a stranger. Let us then unitedly labour to cultivate the forgiving spirit in ourselves and in others, duly considering how much we stand in need of the forgiving grace of God, and always remembering, that if we forgive not men their trespasses against us, neither will our heavenly Father forgive our trespasses.

We ought, also, to be very careful that we do not attribute the faults of individuals to all of the same denomination. Such a method of proceeding is too common, but it is both ungenerous and unreasonable. There are many very amiable persons among the trinitarian clergy. We are not to suppose that all trinitarians possess the same degree of self-importance and bit. terness as ***** **** But I forbear to call names. And I am far from wishing even that man greater evils than he naturally and necessarily suffers by the indulgence of such unchristian feelings."

From the Edinburgh Monthly Magazine.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE EDINBURGH MONTHLY MAGAZINE. SIR,

I HAVE often been surprised that, notwithstanding the ardour of the present age in the pursuit of literary history, so little knowledge generally prevails respecting the origin and nature of the foreign universities; institutions which have contributed in so remarkable a manner to the progress of knowledge.

It is well known that the university of Paris was not only the earliest establishment of this kind in Europe, but that it retained its ascendency for many ages, and certainly possessed a decided superiority over every similar institution in modern times. The particular circumstances, which gave occasion to its existence, are involved in considerable obscurity. It seems, however, to be generally agreed upon, that it derived its origin from the liberal and enterprising genius of Charlemagne. One thing is certain, that Alcuin was protected by him. That prince was not more distinguished by his political wisdom, and the success of his arms, than by a desire of knowledge, and the patronage he extended to learned men. The period in which he flourished was the most ignorant which occurs in the history of the French nation. Charlemagne, however, had imbibed a strong relish for learning from his preceptor Alcuin, who, to the honour of Great Britain, was a native of Yorkshire. He was not only munificent to the learned men of his court, but set the example himself of great ardour in the pursuit of knowledge. This monarch, by far the most powerful in Europe, began to study grammar when he was thirty years old. The degree of ignorance which then prevailed was excessive; yet the patronage that he afforded to letters, and the pattern he exhibited, produced a temporary interval of light amidst the gloom which so generally prevailed.

Though the university of Paris is proud to refer its origin to this great prince, yet it must not be supposed that he formally established it as a constituted body. All great institutions, at least those which have flourished for a long period, have arisen gradually, and acquired strength by degrees. Charlemagne retained a great number of learned men at his court; and as it was his custom, or rather he found it necessary, to be frequent. ly in different parts of his extensive dominions, those persons were in his train, and accompanied him wherever he went. From this, in process of time, sprung the university of Paris. This illustrious seminary gradually acquired a new accession of strength, and at last its reputation became so great, that it was the place of resort of all the learned men in Europe. No one was thought to have had a liberal education who had not studied at Paris; and, considering the state of literature at that time, there was great reason for holding the opinion. In the

1

'middle and dark ages little or nothing was taught, excepting the dialectics of Aristotle. The greatest acuteness was excited, and industry employed, to explain and render intelligible the abstractions of this intricate philosophy. Paris was the theatre in which all literary questions were discussed. The decision which was given by the literati there was esteemed final, as no appeal could be made to any higher tribunal. Their authority continued to be great for many centuries; and the privileges, or rather the jurisdiction, they possessed, not in France only, but in the other countries of Europe, were greater than any other society of learned men ever possessed, either in ancient or modern times. Their influence extended over all the other colleges in Europe. Their reputation was so high, that, without recognising their right to teach the sciences, and to confer the usual degrees, it operated as a barrier, because no students would attend a seminarý, or graduate, when they knew that the Parisian doctors would not admit them into their society, notwithstanding the time which they had spent in the prosecution of their studies. From the number of the subjects taught, it assumed the name of university, in which it has been followed by all similar European academies.

At the revival of learning, the university of Paris took the most active part in promoting the study of the languages; and it has the distinguished honour of enrolling as members, not only the most zealous promoters, but the greatest proficients in classical learning, which any age has ever produced. The study of the Latin had, from the first, been in some degree cultivated; but it was not till the 19th January 1458 that Gregory ' applied to the university for liberty to teach Greek. This was granted, and he was to receive one hundred crowns per annum, upon condition that he gave two lessons each day, one in Greek, and another on rhetorick. It would be impossible to give 'an account, within any moderate bounds, of the different branches of knowledge which were taught there. It may be sufficient to state, that they were generally divided into grammar, philosophy, and theology. The representation of comedies, and other theatrical amusements, was very common in the schools; but at last they became so licentious, that the university found it necessary to interfere. A custom similar to this still exists in England. Even the most rigid reformers did not object to

theatrical exhibitions; but they recommended that the subjects should be taken from Scripture. Buchanan wrote his tragedies to gratify this taste.

The university of Paris was indebted to a great many circumstances for its prosperity. Besides the advantages that accompanied its local situation, the nature of its constitution contributed much towards this. It was altogether composed of seculars; and such was the care which had been taken to maintain its independence, that the regulars were subjected to restrictions which prevented them from ever obtaining the ascendency. It ought also to be observed, that the university was always poor as a body; and this was particularly the case at its first formation. The colleges at all times could scarcely support their Bursars.

Previous to the French Revolution, the university was composed of seven classes; 1. The faculty of theology, which had for its head the oldest of the secular doctors, who was called dean. 2. The faculty of law, originally established for the study of the canon law; but, by an order from the king in 1679, was entitled to teach the civil law also. A dean was chosen every year from among the professors, according to precedence. 3. The faculty of medicine, whose dean was elective, and his office continued two years. 4. The nation of France. 5. The nation of Picardy. 6. The nation of Normandy; and, 7. The nation of Germany. This last was generally called the nation of England before the Reformation. Each of these nations had its head, who was called procureur, and elected annually. They formed together the faculty of arts, but were, nevertheless four distinct companies, and voted separately in the affairs of the university. The rector, chosen by the nations, or their representatives, and taken from the faculty of arts, was head of the whole university, and of the faculty of arts in particular. There were three officers who were perpetual-The syndick-the register-and the receiver. These were taken from the university and faculty of arts.

It will be readily perceived, that not only the technical names. of the offices of those who are engaged in initiating the youth into the principles of knowledge in our established seminaries, but that the CLASSES into which they are divided, are derived from the university of Paris. The same observation may be extended to many other learned societies.

A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN.

SUCH a government is not, never was, and never can be. These mystical aphorisms, without a critical investigation of their meaning, lead to wild projects, visionary speculations, and pernicious errours in politicks as much as in religion. In this trite saying the sense is good, but the expression is too loose.

There is too much rhetorick in it. Although I would not banish Homer, or Milton, or Spenser, or any other good poet from the commonwealth, I would avoid poetical emblems, rhetorical figures, and especially personifications, in all laws, constitutions, and sober reasonings upon government. The most perfect simplicity and precision of lauguage, should always be preserved in all grave discussions of such subjects.

Suppose we should say, a government of the Virtues and not of Men a government of Wisdom and not of Men: a government of Religion natural or revealed, and not of Men: a government of Morality and not of Men: a government of Policy and not of Men: would not any of these propositions be as intelligible, as true, and as important, as our motto?

There is, there can be no government merely human and terrestrial, without men to govern and to be governed. Annihilate all magistracy, which can only be exercised by men, and then consider a nation governed by the Virtues, by the Wisdom, by the Religion, by the Morality, by the Policy of the individuals, who compose it. What would become of your houses and lands, your ships and merchandize, your arts and manufactures, your reputations and characters, your wives and daughters, your limbs and lives, in a few weeks or days? It is very true there can be no good government, without laws: but those laws must be good, must be equal, must be wisely made, but by men however; they must be impartially interpreted, but by men still; and faithfully executed, but by men again." They must also be by men promulgated to the people, and universally known. And there must be organizations and institutions of men to compel the law-makers to ordain good ones, the law-judges to decree impartially, and the law-executors to execute faithfully. These things can only be done in mixed and limited governments. Every one of the three sim