fices they had made to establish themselves in America, and with such precedents as have been mentioned for their guides, is there any reason to wonder at the course which they adopted? What ground was there to apprehend, in the view of that generation, that an institution under such supervision would ever waver in its creed? Undoubtedly individuals acknowledged the right of private judgment in religion; but the great body of the community at the same time maintained, that this right was not to be so exercised as to disturb the state of things in Massachusetts. This is evident from their acts. What was done in the case of Mr. Wheelright, Ann Hutchinson, Roger Williams, the Quakers and Anabaptists need not be repeated here. President Quincy himself says, that the "influence [of the clergy] over the statesmen of the colony was second to none the world ever witnessed. The religion of both was not so much coincident as identical." Without doubt Moses and Aaron walked hand in hand in the proceedings now alluded to, and were entirely agreed in the great religious and political measures of the colony. And when we are further told by the author, that "both were well apprized of the advantages resulting to worldly power from the possession and control of the seminaries of education," is it possible, while they were waging a war of extermination against Antinomians, Quakers and Anabaptists, that they were devising such a constitution for their college, as would allow it to pass readily, as the case might be, under the control of these very sects, and were, in truth, endeavoring "to assure the enjoyment of equal privileges to every religious sect or party;" and were " establishing a seminary of learning, in favor of which they were desirous to unite all the varieties of religious belief?" We cannot but think that the author has here made too heavy a draft on the faith, not to say the credulity, of the reader.

We are told, that the "clergy of that early period wereeminently a practical body of men." This is true; and being such, they contrived a security for the continuance of their faith in the college as strong perhaps as human wisdom could devise; they kept the supervision of the institution in their own hands. After the experience of more than two centuries, it would be difficult, if it were now proposed to establish a creed for all future time, to contrive a method of attaining such an object more effectual, than that actually formed and adopted by the puritans of Massachusetts. At least, we could

name several recent institutions in our country, where men of no common sagacity have employed themselves in devising the surest mode of perpetuating their own faith; and the result has been an organization not differing materially in principle from that originally framed for Harvard College. President Quincy appears to entertain the opinion, that whatever, in a college, is secured by charter, must be permanent. This is not said in so many words, but the course of his argument seems to imply it. But, that the provisions of a college charter are unalterable, is not in our view a self-evident proposition. We could wish that the author had more fully investigated this point, as the consideration of it might have led to some conclusions, which have now escaped him.

66

The extraordinary catholicism, which President Quincy has claimed for the founders of Harvard College, has something in it paradoxical even in his own view. "We should expect," he says, on opening the several charters of this university, to find it, with certainty, anchored head and stern, secure against wind, tide and current, moored firmly on all the points which, at that day, were deemed fixed and immutable." We agree with the author, that this expectation is the only one which can be rationally formed; and on inquiry no disappointment follows. The most unqualified Calvinism was introduced into the college for the purpose of promoting "piety" and "godliness," two prominent objects of the establishment, and the whole institution was placed under the care of a body of clergy thoroughly Calvinistic, men as confident that, on all the great points of theology, such points as were then considered great, they were right, and that all who materially differed from them were wrong, as the world ever saw. They erected one of the strongest barriers, in their apprehension, to the introduction of what they thought heresies; they themselves guarded the avenue to their entrance. If, in the progress of time, the good ship's fastenings have proved to be of less firm materials than was supposed, and violent winds have assailed it from a quarter from which no tempest was feared, and it has been driven somewhat from its first station, this is nothing more than a new instance of the fallibility of human judgment in adapting means to an end. But the failure of a scheme to attain some of its objects is no proof that these objects were never contemplated by its projectors. Calvinism may have gradually vanished from Harvard, but the founders notwithstanding may

have done whatever they thought necessary, or whatever they could have done, to perpetuate it.

That the conclusion of the author, respecting the liberal views of the founders of the university at Cambridge, is not warranted by his premises, will appear still more clearly from a reference to the two charters of Yale College. Here it is manifest that charters may be very liberal, as language is interpreted by President Quincy, where, he himself being judge, there was little or no liberality, in his sense of the word, in those who procured and acted under them. It should be recollected, likewise, that these charters were granted, one more than half a century, and the other more than a century after the first charter of Harvard; and that in the mean time, new causes of alarm for the safety of orthodoxy had arisen. If any means could be discovered for its security, better for the purpose, than those employed in Massachusetts, we should expect to find them made available in the establishment of a college in Connecticut. But the first charter of Yale College has quite as little in it that is sectarian, to say the least, as either charter of Harvard. The petitioners asked for liberty to found a college," 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." The petition was granted; and the trustees were authorized to " erect, form, direct, order, establish, improve, and, at all times in all suitable ways for the future, to encourage the said school-in such form or manner, and under such order and rules, as to them shall seem meet, and most conducive to the aforesaid end thereof, so as such rules or orders be not repugnant to the laws of the civil government." Here is no mention of even " piety" or "godliness. It is true that the legislature speak of the petitioners as persons zealous "for upholding and propagating the Christian Protestant religion by a succession of learned and orthodox men," but this clause liberally interpreted, need not qualify the petition itself. It should be recollected also, that the question was distinctly considered by the founders of Yale College, whether the study of the "Assembly's Catechism" and "Ames's Medulla" should be required by a provision of the charter, and decided in the negative. Here we would ask, in passing, had such a question arisen among the first trustees of Harvard and been decided as it was at Yale, would not President Quincy have considered such a fact conclusive in determining the catholic

views of those trustees and their freedom from all sectarian bias? In the charter of Yale College granted by the legislature in 1745, which placed the seminary in many respects on a new foundation, and greatly enlarged its privileges, there is no allusion whatever to the subject of religion, except that in the preamble it is declared, that the institution had "trained up many worthy persons for the service of God, in the state as well as in the church." It is likewise worthy of remark, that in this charter of 1745 there is a reference in the preamble to the object of the original founders, which is stated to have been the establishment of "a collegiate school within this colony, wherein youth might be instructed in the arts and sciences.' Religion, if it have any place here, is included under the general designation of "arts and sciences." Adopting President Quincy's mode of reasoning we should infer that catholicism, at this time, was very rife in Connecticut, and that it had greatly increased in the preceding forty-five years; yet the truth undoubtedly is, that in 1745 there was less of a disposition in Connecticut to favor sectaries, than at any period of its history either before or since. It also deserves attention that the charter of 1745 was drafted by President Clap, a graduate of Harvard, whose orthodoxy, there early rooted and nurtured, grew with his growth and strengthened with his strength; and who certainly would have introduced into this charter some provision to secure the prevalence of Calvinistic tenets in the college, if he had thought such a measure necessary for his purpose; or rather, if he had not supposed that the same object was fully attained in a different manner.

From all these considerations, which might be much more fully illustrated, we are clearly of the opinion, that the conclusion drawn by President Quincy, from the two first charters of Harvard College, as to the catholicism of its founders, is wholly incorrect. So far were they from entertaining any such views of liberality as are now prevalent, and designedly arranging the institution for the free and unrestrained use of all sects of Christians indiscriminately, that it is obvious from these very charters that they cherished sentiments directly opposite, and did all that they thought necessary, perhaps all that they could do, to secure the ascendency of their own theological system in all succeeding times. We think, likewise, that it is most manifest,and to prove this was our sole object in this inquiry,—that the contrast which President Quincy has drawn between the views

of the founders of Harvard and the founders of Yale is not supported by any facts which he has produced. Reasoning on his own principles from the language of the charters, the balance of catholicism is perhaps in favor of Connecticut. But no sentiments of liberality in religion, such as are now prevalent, were at all countenanced by the founders of Yale. They looked, without doubt, exclusively to the predominance of their own system of faith; and in this respect they differed not in the least, as we believe, from the founders of Harvard.

A second proof of the catholicism of the founders of Harvard College, President Quincy finds in the fact, as he states it, that the "first two presidents, and the only ones appointed by the early emigrants, were known unbelievers in points of religious faith to which the congregational clergy of that time rigidly adhered."* Dunster, he says, was " an avowed antipedobaptist; yet he was chosen and continued president of the seminary fourteen years." Here the plain implication is, and it is essential to the argument, that Dunster was known to be an opponent of infant baptism at the time of his election; which, so far as we know, is supported by no authority. The account given of this matter by Mather is, that Dunster "continued the president of Harvard College, until his unhappy entanglement in the snares of anabaptism." The meaning of this language is obvious; Dunster became an anabaptist a short time only before he left his office. The corporation and overseers, according to the same author, "did, as quietly as they could, procure his removal." If we have the facts correctly, what is there in this transaction, which proves any uncommon liberality in the authorities of the college? The case in short was this. President Dunster declared himself against infant baptism, and in consequence was obliged to resign his office. There is an occurrence parallel to this in the history of Yale College. In 1722, Rector Cutler publicly announced that he had become convinced of the invalidity of Presbyterian ordination; and that he should soon embark for England to obtain orders in the Episcopal church. On hearing this, the trustees voted to "excuse the Rev. Mr. Cutler from all further service." We have no doubt, that under the circumstances both President Dunster and Rector Cutler were rightly removed from their places. It is true that we have not been in the habit of considering the

* Vol. I. p. 47.