politics and religion; for the former was educated in Scotland, is the leader of the Whig party, and an enemy of Puseyism; the latter is one of the most dutiful sons of Oxford, a conservative Peelite, and a High Churchman of the Anglo-Catholic school. So the Reform Bill resulted in a compromise, and was reduced to an improvement simply of the present system. Here it satisfies neither of the extreme parties; but it was, perhaps, after all, the best measure which could be wisely carried at present. It removes the most glaring abuses; throws the headships, fellowships, and scholarships open to merit; forbids the non-residence of fellows for more than a year; abolishes the legislative and administrative supremacy of the hebdomadal board, and establishes a new hebdomadal council, composed of the vice-chancellor, the proctor, six heads of houses, six professors, and six members of the convocation, (the last eighteen to be all elected by the congregation,) thus combining the energy of young men with the wisdom of experience. This council has the exclusive right of proposing and framing laws for the sanction of the convocation, or the legislative body of the University.

But the tutorial system-that is, the monopoly of public instruction by the fellows of each college separately-is still dominant in Oxford. We do not agree with those who advocate its entire abolition in favour of the professorial system, after the model of German universities. On the contrary, we believe that the catechetical method of instruction, in connexion with a constant supervision of the students, has invaluable advantages, especially in a moral and religious point of view. The unbounded freedom of the German universities involves a fearful risk for inexperienced youth. But I do not see why both systems should not be combined. An extension of professorial teaching, and a more complete organization of the faculty studies, are certainly, as already remarked, important desiderata for Oxford and Cambridge. It cannot be denied, that the independent contributions of these establishments to the cause of literature and science are in no proportion whatever to their immense pecuniary resources. The German universities, although much poorer, accomplish far more in this respect, as is evident from the fact, that nearly all the distinguished philological authorities known and used in Oxford and Cambridge are Germans, or old Dutch; as Ruhnken, Valckenaer, Ernesti, Heyne, Orelli, Hermann, Lachmann, Bekker, Dindorf, Baehr, Passow, Poppo, Buttmann, Kuehner, Zumpt, Rost, Gesenius, Ewald. This literary fertility is, to a very great extent owing to the competition or rivalry connected with the professorial system. We have no doubt that the English Universities would produce far more elaborate works on the various

branches of science, if the professorial studies were better provided for; and if the tutorial career were the regular preparation for the professorship. Dr. Pusey raised the objection against the German universities, that they are the nurseries of Rationalism. But this is not necessarily the result of the professorial system, but of a particular age, which dates only from the end of the last century, and has already in a great measure passed away to make room for evangelical orthodoxy. The Scotch universities, which are similarly constituted, have never reared yet an infidel clergy. With just as much reason we might derive Puseyism and the Anglican secessions to Romanism, which grew out of it, from the half-monastic system of tutorial instruction and supervision.

But in one important respect the Oxford University Reform Bill, as finally passed by Parliament, went beyond the original draft as laid before the house by the Aberdeen ministry on the 17th of March, 1854. The religious test or oath at matriculation and at the taking of the bachelor's degree has been abolished, so that collegee ducation, and the first degree in the liberal arts, are now open to every Englishman without subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles. The High Church party is, of course, very much opposed to this concession to the Dissenters, and considers it an infringement on the rights of the Established Church. But this is, in fact, no more the national Church; and if the Universities are to retain a national character, they ought to be liberalized, and to throw their doors open to every subject of the crown. Most of the colleges and their endowments are of mediæval and Roman Catholic origin, and were inherited by the Episcopal Church on the ground that England belongs not to the dead, but to the living. On the same principle the Dissenters, who have since grown to be almost as numerous as the Anglicans, may justly claim some share in the educational advantages of these national institutions. There is no danger that the Dissenters, who may avail themselves of the privileges now opened to them, will bring about a radical change in these institutions. On the contrary, they will be as much, and more influenced by them as Oxford and Cambridge by the Dissenters.

It is to be expected that the English Universities will henceforth follow in the general train of all English institutions. It is only by timely adaptations to the real wants of this age of progress, that they can be saved against stagnation as well as radical revolution. The citadel of Conservatism has at last been stormed by the spirit of the nineteenth century, and no power can set limits to future actions of Parliament, and arrest the law of constitutional progress.

ART. VII.-3, SHEOL.

THIS word occurs sixty-five times in the original Hebrew of the Bible, and is rendered, in the common English translation, thirtyone times "hell," thirty times "the grave," three times "the pit," and once "grave."

As use, and not derivation, is the true standard by which the meaning of a word is most properly ascertained, so, whether biz Sheol is supposed to be derived from one word or from another, either derivation is founded on only a supposition, and can prove comparatively nothing. For an illustration of this remark, let it be supposed that is Sheol etymologically means a cavity; then, as it cannot be proved that the soul of man, though immaterial, is capable of existing in all places at one and the same time, so, on its departure from his body, it may really occupy a general cavity of a particular nature; and hence, bix Sheol may be in this respect as applicable to the soul as to the body; and if the word is derived, as usually supposed, from a word signifying "to ask," it is, in this case also, as applicable to a receptacle for the soul as to one for the body, since the former receptacle, at least as truly as the latter, may be regarded as claiming what it receives. As derivation, then, affords no means of ascertaining the meaning of the word definitively, its use must be examined and regarded as alone decisive in relation to its signification.

Several grammatical facts connected with bis Sheol are very striking, and they indicate that it is a Hebrew proper name of a particular place. If this be true, it is susceptible of the clearest demonstration.

1. According to the rule of Hebrew grammar which requires the Hebrew article to be "omitted in proper names of” “countries,” bi Sheol is never connected with that article. That the constant absence of the Hebrew definite article from this word indicates that it is a proper, and not simply an indefinite or common noun, is particularly corroborated by two special facts: first, that, if it were not an ordinary proper name, such of its omissions of that article as those in Numbers xvi, 33, and Psalm xlix, 14, would be contrary to the rule of Hebrew grammar, according to which the article is prefixed to a common noun "when" it "is repeated" after it has "just been introduced;" secondly, that, if it were not a FOURTH SERIES, VOL. VIII.-18

proper name, its omissions of the article in Proverbs i, 12, Canticles viii, 6, and Habakkuk ii, 5, would be contrary to the rule, that "the Hebrews" employed the article in "comparisons" after ke (as) P when "the noun compared is" not "made definite," either by a "genitive," as is the word similarly compared which follows is Sheol in Prov. i, 12, "or in any other way," as by the fact that it is a proper name, of which an illustrative example occurs in Isaiah i, 9, independent of these three instances of bis Sheol. In Canticles and Habakkuk, the original word rendered "death," similarly compared, is in each case preceded by the article, showing that bi Sheol, not otherwise "made definite," is made such by the fact that it is a proper name.

2. As Hebrew collective nouns, or nouns of multitude, are preceded by the article, "when the entire genus is designated," and as Hebrew nouns which designate plurality, and which are not collective nouns, have plural endings, or are repeated, "with and without the copula," so in Sheol, which, as in Job xxvi, 6, and Proverbs xv, 11, never has any of these characteristics of plurality, is not a collective noun, and is always in the singular number, which shows that there is only one thing of its character. It therefore cannot mean deaths or earthly distresses; and though it designates the place to which all men are represented, as in Ecclesiastes ix, 10, to go at death, yet it cannot designate the place to which their bodies then go, unless such place include at least land and water and the open air, and the internal parts of animals. Its meaning then would, from even this alone, appear to be the general receptacle of departed human spirits.

3. 5 Sheol is never connected with personal possessive pronouns, nor with demonstrative pronouns, and it never occurs in the "construct state," nor in any other way which would show that it belongs or appertains to only one individual, or to only a part of mankind; and hence it must be regarded as a general receptacle, and as not susceptible of an exclusive appropriation to individuals. 4. As what is emphatically termed "He local" (~—7) implies "place," so is Sheol, which has that Hebrew appendage to designations of locality annexed to itself ten times, and twice to words connected with it in meaning, is evidently a place, and not an abstract thing, as death, unconsciousness, or earthly distress, which is confirmed by the fact, that is Sheol, never being feminine in form, and never having the article prefixed to it, has not the marks which singly or jointly are generally connected with Hebrew abstract nouns.

To the grammatical use of bis Sheol, Hebrew common nouns in abundance, especially those of at least as frequent occurrence, present striking and illustrative contrasts. For an illustration of this remark, it is sufficient to refer to the appropriate Hebrew words for a literal grave and death, with which is Sheol is perhaps most frequently assumed to be synonymous. The former of these, kever, has the Hebrew article in Psalm lxxxviii, 11-"the grave;" plural endings, as in Exodus xiv, 11-"graves;" personal possessive pronouns, as in 1 Kings xiii, 30-"his own grave;" and it is also in the construct state, as in 2 Samuel iii, 32-" the grave of." The latter of those two words, n mauveth, has that article also in 1 Samuel xx, 3-" death;" a plural ending in Ezra xxviii, 10— "deaths;" personal possessive pronouns, as in Deuteronomy xxxi, 27 -"my death;" a demonstrative pronoun in Exodus x, 17—“ this death;" and it is also in the construct state, as in Joshua i, 1—" the death of."

Though it is true that exceptions occur to most rules, yet as it is UTTERLY ABSURD to suppose that this word, with a comparatively limited frequency of occurrence, is an exception, not to one rule, but to several different rules, and in so many instances, so it seems to be philologically proved that it is a proper name. As such, it is not susceptible of a multiplicity of meanings, and therefore cannot legitimately signify a literal grave, a literal pit, death, earthly distress. It is not very strange, however, that when it is represented by the words grave and pit, an absurdity does not always appear; since the arrival of a human soul in the general receptacle of departed spirits is usually succeeded by a consignment of its body to a grave or pit; and therefore in such cases two events are equally true, and a man goes as really to a grave or pit as to the spirit-world. But as such an interpretation tends to produce the impression that bix Sheol is an indefinite noun, susceptible of so various meanings as to exclude any one fixed and proper signification, truth would unquestionably be promoted by rendering it, in all cases, the general receptacle of departed human spirits, or the spirit-world; or still more by transferring it without a translation, as a proper name. In Robinson's Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon, it is so treated, and therefore expressed by the English Sheol.

That the inhabitants of bis Sheol have consciousness is obvious from the circumstances under which it is represented. As Sheol designates a place separate and distinct from that to which the body is consigned at death, the conclusion follows almost irresistibly that the part of man which goes to it, and which must be the soul, possesses