n just passed with
much plausible argument and not a little wit, seems to me an intellectual
absurdity; and my reason for saying so runs, with whatever abruptness,
into the form of a syllogism:--A University, I should lay down, by its very
name professes to teach universal knowledge: Theology is surely a branch
of knowledge: how then is it possible for it to profess all branches of
knowledge, and yet to exclude from the subjects of its teaching one which,
to say the least, is as important and as large as any of them? I do not
see that either premiss of this argument is open to exception.

As to the range of University teaching, certainly the very name of
University is inconsistent with restrictions of any kind. Whatever was the
original reason of the adoption of that term, which is unknown,(5) I am
only putting on it its popular, its recognized sense, when I say that a
University should teach universal knowledge. That there is a real
necessity for this universal teaching in the highest schools of intellect,
I will show by-and-by; here it is sufficient to say that such universality
is considered by writers on the subject to be the very characteristic of a
University, as contrasted with other seats of learning. Thus Johnson, in
his Dictionary, defines it to be "a school where all arts and faculties
are taught;" and Mosheim, writing as an historian, says that, before the
rise of the University of Paris,--for instance, at Padua, or Salamanca, or
Cologne,--"the whole circle of sciences then known was not taught;" but
that the school of Paris, "which exceeded all others in various respects,
as well as in the number of teachers and students, was the first to
embrace all the arts and sciences, and therefore first became a
University."(6)

If, with other authors, we consider the word to be derived from the
invitation which is held out by a University to students of every kind,
the result is the same; for, if certain branches of knowledge were
excluded, those students of course would be excluded also, who desired to
pursue them.

Is it, then, logically consistent in a seat of learning to call itself a
University, and to exclude Theology from the number of its studies? And
again, is it wonderful that Catholics, even in the view of reason, putting
aside faith or religious duty, should be dissatisfied with existing
institutions, which profess to be Universities, and refuse to teach
Theology; and that they should in consequence des