Harvard. At Harvard, the catechism was recited by the Freshmen in Greek, at Yale, by all classes in Latin; a difference, the importance and ground of which, we will not undertake to determine.

At Yale, "Ames's Theological Theses" were recited; at Harvard," Ames's System of Divinity." "Ames's Medulla" is meant in both cases. It seems, that at Harvard, previous to 1723, Wollebius had been called in as an auxiliary to Ames. In Yale College, about the same time, the" Compendium Theologiæ Christianæ" of Wollebius was a text-book; proving, what before, perhaps, was sufficiently evident, that the course of studies in the latter institution was regularly conformed to that of the former. At Yale, the students heard explanations of "Ames's Cases of Conscience;" at Harvard, they gave an account of "their proficiency and experience in practical and spiritual truths," were required "to attend God's ordinances, and be examined on their profiting." The actual process in the two cases was probably nearly the same. We can see here, however, no indications of any "stricter form" in Connecticut, than in Massachusetts. As to reading and expounding the Scriptures, and repeating sermons, the course in the two colleges was the same. Why "the college in Connecticut began to be deemed by the stricter sect of Calvinists the stronghold of their opinions" does not appear. Ifin Harvard, a " catholic and liberal spirit" was " its vital principle and distinguishing characteristic," and we are not now questioning the fact,-what proof has been yet presented, that the same spirit did not exist in Yale ?—If in Harvard there was no "form of sound words," no" creed," no "catechism," no "medulla theologiæ""established as a standard of religious faith, to which every one, entering on an office of government and instruction, was required to swear and subscribe, and, at the hazard of perjury and hypocrisy, under the combined temptations of loss of place, of caste and of bread, at stated periods to renew his oath and subscription," neither was there at Yale. If the regulations of Harvard show no "shackle for the human soul," neither do the regulations of Yale show any such thing there. If " the first constitution of Harvard College, established in 1642, in enumerating the powers granted and the objects proposed to be attained by its foundation, makes use of these simple and memorable terms:" "To make and establish all such orders, statutes and constitutions, as they shall see necessary for the instituting,

SECOND SERIES, VOL. VI. NO. I.

17

guiding and furthering of the said college, and the several members thereof, from time to time, in piety, morality and learning;" the first charter of Yale College authorizes the establishment of a school," wherein youth may be instructed in the arts and sciences, who through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for public employments both in church and civil state." If there is proof of a "catholic spirit" in the one case, why not in the other?

man."

But perhaps at Yale, in elections, inquiry was made as to the belief of individual candidates. How was it at Harvard? In 1737, when the Rev. Mr. Holyoke of Marblehead was a candidate for the Presidency, Governor Belcher is related* to have inquired of the Rev. John Barnard : "Can you vouch for Mr. Holyoke's Calvinistic principles ?" To which question Mr. Barnard replied: "If more than thirty years intimacy, and more than twenty years living with him, and scores of times hearing him preach can lead me into the knowledge of a man's principles, I think Mr. Holyoke as orthodox a Calvinist as any man; though I look upon him as too much of a gentleman, and of too catholic a temper to cram his principles down another man's throat." "Then," said his excellency," I believe he must be the And accordingly he was the man, and was elected in both boards unanimously. We suppose, that in the selection of the ten clergymen who composed the first board of trustees in Yale College, satisfactory evidence was required that each individual was 66 as orthodox a Calvinist as any man," and that all, or most, of this board were not of as "catholic a temper" as President Holyoke we have no reason to believe. The Rev. Timothy Woodbridge of Hartford, one of the first trustees, certainly sympathized with the party in Boston, considered as liberal by President Quincy, and there is no ground for the supposition, that he was singular in this respect. The board, as a body, is indirectly represented by Mr. Noyes, soon after, as consisting of "Latitudinarians," like those who had the direction of the college at Cambridge. If suspicion of a man's orthodoxy is sufficient to prove him of a "catholic spirit," the President and Fellows of Yale College have strong support of this kind; since from the time Mr. Noyes wrote his letter to Judge Sewall in 1723, and perhaps from a much earlier period, there has never been a day, when that body have not lain under the imputa

* Vol. II. p. 7.

tion from some quarter or other, of having, more or less, " departed from the faith."

But can it be true, that the first trustees of Yale College were "liberal" and "catholic," in the sense in which these epithets are used by President Quincy? If we correctly apprehend his meaning, he would be understood to say, that the founders of Harvard College designedly gave it a constitution which, so far as any provision of the charter was concerned, would admit of its easily passing into the hands of any sect of religionists, who could use the words "piety" and "godliness;" and that in making their fundamental arrangements, they had this object distinctly in view. This we do not believe to have been the fact in Connecticut; and yet every argument adduced to prove it to have been true at Harvard is equally cogent to prove it to have been true at Yale. The first trustees of the latter college had the proposition distinctly before them, to insert a provision in their charter, that strict Calvinism should be taught; and on consideration, they rejected it. Not that they were not Calvinists, or did not intend to make their own system of faith the ground of religious instruction. They undoubtedly supposed, that they were abundantly secured in another way. "They were as orthodox Calvinists as any men," but, like President Holyoke, were not disposed to adopt "new measures.”

The question here, we wish it understood, is not how far the present directors of either Harvard or Yale, in the management of their respective institutions, are bound to respect the religious opinions of their founders; or whether they are bound at all. These questions are of entirely a different character from that which we are about to consider, and would lead to a discussion, on which we have no inclination at present to enter. The inquiry will be simply as to the matter of fact, whether the founders of Harvard College were "liberal" in the sense above explained? In our opinion, the reasoning of President Quincy on this point is inconclusive and unsatisfactory.

[To be continued.]

ARTICLE IX.

ANGLO-SAXON LITERATURE.

THE Saxon part of the English language has, as yet, attracted but little attention in the United States. The causes of this neglect are obvious. The importance of studying the language, as a whole, or any part of it, has not been deeply felt. Our institutions of learning have been tardy in making provision for the radical study of the vernacular speech. Professors of the English language have not, in general, formed a part of the corps of instruction in a college. If the subject has received any degree of attention, it has been indirect and ineffectual. The history of the language, its structure, its various dialects have been considered as falling into the province of the antiquarian, rather than as being a matter of intense interest, and of great practical value to the general student. In our seminaries, the subject has been conjoined with, or appended to the department of oratory or belles-lettres, as if unworthy to stand on independent ground.

Again, the influence of certain writers has been unfavorable to the development of the original elements of the language. They have bowed down before Latin or French idols. In their zeal for high-sounding periods, or the polysyllabic march of a sentence, they have overlooked that which imparts to the language its masculine energy, its iron strength, its wedge-like force. Writers, like Dr. Johnson and Gibbon, have exerted a pernicious influence.* Their peculiarities are precisely such as attract the admiration of the young, at the period when the style is in a process of formation. It is singular that a man of so much acumen as the great lexicographer, who, in his conversation, showed such powers of irony and sarcasm, who, in other words, possessed qualities of mind which naturally seek

* The recent editor of Gibbon, Mr. Milman, has some of the faults of his author. In the History of Christianity, his style is exceedingly faulty. Not a few sentences are wretchedly ungrammatical. The history is, in many respects, very interesting.

short and pithy modes of expression, should have employed, in his written compositions, such a rotund and ponderous Latin terminology. The influence of Burke's writings has been, in a degree, like that of Dr. Johnson's. Robert Hall's style, though it combines distinguished excellencies, is still wanting in the force and simplicity which is the result of familiarity with the Saxon elements. His conversation and his ordinary style of preaching were not chargeable with this fault, at least in an equal degree.

We shall, perhaps, be pardoned in referring to two individuals in our own country, who have illustrated what may be called the Roman and the Saxon styles of composition. Dr. Dwight, in his more elaborate discourses, like the one which was preached before the American Board for Foreign Missions, has the pomp and stateliness of a well trained Castilian. Polysyllables roll along in imperial magnificence. On the other hand, Dr. Beecher has the sententious brevity, the point, the fiery glow of one who has smelted the ore in the native mines; who determines, with a sort of blacksmith energy, to force an instant entrance into the citadel of the conscience. Hence he uses hot shot and hand-grenades, rather than the thundering

cannon.

We do not intend, by these remarks, to decry the use of Latin and French words. It is the honor of the English language, that it is a mixed one, that it has gathered the spoils of many realms and tongues. It is a poor conceit, which would confine a writer to words of one or two letters. There are thoughts and feelings which refuse to be compressed into monosyllables. There are species of compositions which demand, for their full effect, that they should be clothed in the Roman toga. The English translation of the Bible is celebrated for its thorough Saxon character. Yet, when occasion calls, the venerable translators resort to their Gallic and Italian neighbors. What can be more perfectly Latin than the version of some of the sublimer passages in the Apocalypse?

Another cause of the neglect of the Anglo-Saxon may be traced to the common impression that we are sufficiently acquainted with it already. We may not be able to read the letters; we may possess no Saxon dictionary; we may not have looked into any author anterior to Chaucer, or, perhaps, to Shakspeare; we may have never analyzed the language into its original elements, and yet we may deceive ourselves