** *°p 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CIassLl>.ai2.Q 
 
 Book.Xxn 
 
 Author 
 
 Title 
 
 Imprint 
 
 Copy 
 
 16—47372-1 GF 
 
Mr. GRAY'g LEISTER 
 
 TO 
 
 GOVERNOR LINCOLN 
 
 - - ON 
 
 . % 
 
 HARVARD UNIVERSITY 
 
LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 GOVERNOR LINCOLN, 
 
 IN RELATION TO 
 
 HARVARD UNIVERSITY. 
 
 BOSTON 
 FROM HALE'S STEAM-POWER-PRESS 
 
 W. L. Lewis, Printer, No. 8 Congress Street. 
 MDCCCXXXI. 
 

 In exchange 
 Peabody Institute 
 
 Baltimore 
 AUG 2 . 1928 
 
TO HIS EXCELLENCY 
 
 LEVI LINCOLN, 
 
 GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Sir, — The various reports, to the disadvantage of 
 Harvard University, which are always circulating 
 among us, have been recently urged with so much zeal 
 and vigor, and such an appearance of uniform and 
 organised effort, that some of its friends are appre- 
 hensive, lest these attacks, keeping each other in coun- 
 tenance by their noise and their numbers, and making 
 up in activity what they want in strength, may im- 
 pair the credit or diminish the usefulness of the In- 
 stitution, if they remain any longer unanswered. 
 Yielding reluctantly to the wishes of these friends, I 
 have at length determined to answer such of the reports 
 in question as 1 have heard and can comprehend. This 
 letter is addressed to you, Sir, because, as Governor of 
 the Commonwealth, you preside over the Board of 
 Overseers, and therefore it seemed not improper that 
 it should be so ; and because your name may give it 
 some consequence, and thus occasion it to be more 
 extensively read. It is written without consulting any 
 other member of the Corporation. It is written with- 
 out fear for the cause, which will triumph as soon as 
 it is understood. It is written without anxiety ; for 
 
all these clamors seem to ine a good omen : :o\v 
 
 that the enemies of the College are alarmed : and at 
 what are they alarmed but at the apprehension :: in 
 perity ; Having a high ion of their sagacity 
 
 than <:: their fairness, I replies, in their fears. 
 
 I dis ks in the personal character of 
 
 any individual, or of any class, party, or sect It is 
 no di _ ion tiring to respect _-. :::an and n this ar- 
 guments : or to i ;s| _ cttJ ■ . ; : ments and not the man. 
 In speaking, therefore, g imeuts :. tensions 
 
 adva.. ; -: I man 01 set c : n .er in tfa 
 
 own ■:: in that : Jthers, it is my intention to 
 
 say what I think of the arguments and protensions 
 themselves, without the slightest reference to the pri- 
 vate characters :: those, by whom or in whose behalf 
 
 nies of the C allege, 
 I cj not mean any partic dai sect oi r, tor 1 
 
 know none, wh: iny man to caU if so; 
 
 I mean those, of or sect, who are 
 
 united in to the Institution. Nor do I apply 
 
 . ill, who have m = .■• : 
 College. - not many of its fri : 
 
 these sabs : i .:.?.:::.:. from ■ 
 
 sin ere iesj e l see its government proper! is* 
 
 tered. the jections which 1 shall auswei 
 
 have been m ide f en :// les. the 
 
 for:. anderstaiH ueast ans ring them in the 
 
 spi I . : riendship. Eu: :'. - . -. :. ' ." . 
 
 10* please me, I 
 the absolute t of anonjmc us tecs to 
 
 hat rlaim has e the| tc 
 
control over the College, or to any explanation of its 
 affairs ? An exact scrutiny by the proper authority 
 into all our public institutions is right ; but positive 
 assertions without knowledge, charges without in- 
 quiry, and condemnation without proof or hearing, are 
 not right. And is this the proper authority? We 
 have been told, indeed, that these demands upon us 
 are made by the Public. But surely every anony- 
 mous writer in the newspaper cannot call himself the 
 Public, and make claims upon us in that capacity, 
 At least we may say, ' come out and show us what 
 sort of a Public you are.' I have no desire to call 
 them out, Sir, nor any care about it ; but till they do 
 come out, I say they have no right to [make such 
 claims. 
 
 The State, it is said, founded the College, and there- 
 fore has a right of visitation over it. But then who is 
 the State ? Surely not every person in it. And what 
 is the right of visitation ? Is it an arbitrary right to 
 question, control, and punish at pleasure ; or is it a le- 
 gal right to be exercised according to the forms and 
 principles of law and equity ? How is it exercised in 
 England, from which we derive the right itself, and 
 the form of all our judicial tribunals. Does even 
 the King himself exercise it personally ? Not at 
 all. The proper tribunal causes all parties in interest 
 to appear before it, and after fair notice and full hear- 
 ing, and deliberate consideration, does unto them what 
 to law and justice may be found to appertain. And if 
 Massachusetts should see fit to exercise a similar 
 power, she would undoubtedly exercise it through the 
 
agency of the proper tribunal. It may be questioned 
 whether she has not already established such a tribu- 
 nal in the Board of Overseers, and delegated to them 
 this power of visitation. If it be so, the power is ex- 
 ercised every day. But if not, if she still retains a 
 right of visitation above and beyond the Overseers, 
 how would she exercise it ? She would do what she 
 has always heretofore done when she wanted to exer- 
 cise equity powers without a Court of Equity ; she 
 would enable her Supreme Judicial Court to determine 
 the case according to the principles of right and jus- 
 tice. At any rate she would do what should be fit 
 and proper. I have no fear that she will let her 
 power be used as an instrument of injustice by our 
 enemies. If she comes in her might, she will come in 
 her dignity and her righteousness also, and will not 
 smite us right or wrong at their bidding. I feel not 
 the least alarm at the intimation, that they can wield 
 the power of the State against the College to its ruin, 
 and that they are determined to do so. I doubt 
 whether they understand the temper of the People of 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 So much for their pretensions to the right and the 
 power of controlling the College. Now for a few of 
 their complaints. The first and most frequent is, that 
 there are not so manv students in Cambridge as in 
 some other Colleges. What then ? There is no In- 
 stitution in New-England or in America, in which the 
 morals and manners of youth are more carefully or 
 more successfully guarded and improved ; none in 
 which they can now obtain, I say it boldly and with- 
 
out. disparagement or disrespect of others, an education 
 nearly so complete ; and we are every year doing 
 something to make it still better. It is indeed for this 
 precise purpose that we are committing another of our 
 sins ; that of laying up a little money to this end. 
 What more can we do ? Let them tell us frankly and 
 explicitly what they wish us to do. Are any of them 
 actuated by a desire to have the College placed under 
 the control of some party, to which they belong ; and 
 if they are so, does not this fact alone render all their 
 complaints somewhat suspicious ? Are any of them 
 among those over-zealous champions, who, stepping 
 beyond what moderate and candid men of any party 
 would approve, have been concerned in calling secret 
 meetings for the purpose of pledging themselves to 
 each other to use all their influence, to prevent those 
 parents who might otherwise do so, from sending their 
 sons to Harvard University ? Or are they among 
 those, who are constantly endeavoring to accomplish 
 the same object, by proclaiming, wherever they can 
 make themselves heard, that every father who sends 
 his son there, puts at hazard his salvation, and that 
 of all his posterity? And shall these same men, (if 
 indeed they are the same,) as soon as their unremitted, 
 universal, and organised efforts, have been attended 
 with some small success ; so small as to be perceptible 
 only to themselves, shall these same men turn round 
 on the College and condemn it for the consequences 
 of their own proceedings ? Is this fair, or reasonable ? 
 I cheerfully leave this question to the good sense of the 
 People of Massachusetts. If their complaint be sin- 
 
8 
 
 cere, and not. a mere pretext ; if they really desire to 
 have the number of students in Harvard increased, they 
 certainly have adopted a most extraordinary mode for 
 the accomplishment of their object. When did ever the 
 friends of Harvard, attempt by secret cabals or open 
 clamors, to deter parents from sending their sons to 
 any other Institution, which they might prefer ? If 
 they had done so, Harvard would have disowned them. 
 And after all, how much truth is there in the asser- 
 tion ? There are more students in Cambridge, I be- 
 lieve, than in any other College but Yale ; and let it be 
 considered how many are induced to go to Yale by the 
 great amount of charitable assistance received there 
 from the society for theological education, and from 
 other funds. Last year one hundred and forty- 
 four undergraduates received charitable aid in Yale, 
 and only thirty-four in Harvard ; and this aid was 
 probably necessary for their education in each. We 
 are told that some Colleges attract more students from 
 other States than Harvard. This is true. But she 
 attracts many more students from her own State, than 
 any other Institution from the State to which it be- 
 longs.. Which is the greater praise ? 
 
 But the expenses of a student in Cambridge it is 
 said, are unreasonably great. That they are greater 
 than in some other Institutions, I readily admit. But 
 this difference results from the nature of things, and 
 not from any fault of the College. These expenses 
 are of two kinds ; the expenses of living, and the 
 expenses of education. As far as the first are con- 
 cerned, there are Colleges in country towns no doubt, 
 
9 
 
 where rent and fuel and food are cheaper than in 
 Cambridge ; and I am glad of it, because it enables 
 those parents, who cannot afford to have their children 
 educated so near the Capital, to give them a better 
 education, than they could do, if these Colleges did 
 not exist. But then all these things are cheaper in 
 the College here, than any where else near it, and this 
 by the exertions, and at the expense of the College 
 Government. Thus, for instance, they let their rooms 
 at less than one half the sum, which a similar room 
 costs out of College. So by providing dining halls and 
 kitchens and furniture, at the expense of the College, 
 the cost of board to the students is reduced, much 
 below what is paid for it in the neighbourhood, and 
 lower than it could be otherwise supplied. It is one 
 dollar and seventy-five cents per week. If it can be 
 had in Amherst for less, we may rejoice in their good 
 fortune, but we cannot share it. The young men 
 studying in Cambridge, cannot at the same time board 
 in Amherst. So of wood. It is bought in the cheapest 
 season, in large quantities by the Institution, and dealt 
 out to the students as they want it, without profit. No 
 doubt, it is cheaper in the country. But what then ? 
 The students must have fires, and while they are study- 
 ing in one town, they cannot keep their fires in another. 
 As to the expenses of education itself, including the 
 books necessary for it, they are less in Cambridge 
 than they can be in any other part of New England. 
 With regard to the books, this is obvious. They are 
 purchased in large quantities, at the lowest rates at 
 which they can be obtained even by booksellers ; 
 2 
 
10 
 
 many are brought from Europe, because they may be 
 bought there cheaper than in America ; and they are 
 sold to the students, like the wood, without profit. 
 Now it is impossible that these books can be sold so 
 cheap in any country town, as in Cambridge ; for the 
 bookseller in the country can get none of them 
 cheaper than the Cambridge student, and for all the 
 foreign books, and many others, he must pay more. 
 x4nd let him be as moderate as he will, he must charge 
 on them some profit beyond the cost to him, or how is 
 he to support himself and his family ? The assertion, 
 therefore, that text-books are cheaper in any country 
 town than in Cambridge, cannot be true, unless in 
 relation to some particular work printed near that 
 place, which must be a small matter, and must be 
 much more than counterbalanced by the far greater 
 number, printed in and near Cambridge. It may be 
 true, that the scholar in the country town, pays less 
 in the year for his books, but it does not follow that 
 his hooks are cheaper. If he pays two dollars in a 
 year for two books, and the- student in Cambridge 
 pays four dollars for eight hooks, each of equal value, 
 the former pays only half as much for his books, hut 
 he pays twice as dear. If, indeed, any of the Cam- 
 bridge hooks are not worth having, or not worth the 
 cost, or not worth as much as the books used else- 
 where, the case might be different, but I know no 
 reason for making any such conjecture. Let me add, 
 that no student is compelled to buy either his fuel or 
 his books from the College, but if he can get them, or 
 any of them, cheaper in any other manner, he has the 
 right to do so. 
 
11 
 
 So it is with instruction. There may be less money 
 paid for it by students elsewhere, than in Cambridge, 
 but they do not get so much of it in proportion to the 
 cost ; and therefore it is not so cheap. But some 
 persons would not have so many books and so much 
 instruction. Very well ! Then they do not want a 
 whole education, but only half an one. They do not 
 want our article. No doubt they can get half an one 
 cheaper ; but we have not got it to sell. 
 
 Enormous sums have sometimes been stated as the 
 actual amount of a student's expenses in Cambridge ; 
 perhaps truly stated. But there is no limit to the 
 amount which a young man may contrive to throw 
 away, if his friends will let him, and this is equally 
 true in all places. The necessary expenses of a 
 student at Harvard, including every thing but clothing, 
 do not exceed two hundred and ten dollars a year. 
 If he is allowed to spend thousands, this is no fault of 
 the College, but an injury done to it, by him and his 
 friends ; and it is not they who have the right to 
 complain, but the College Government. 
 
 It has been made a subject of complaint, that the 
 College does not now expend its whole income. Last 
 year it is said to have received above eleven thousand 
 dollars more than it spent. But take a series of five 
 or ten years, and it will be found to have laid up little 
 or nothing. Some time ago, there were spent for 
 many successive years, several thousand dollars more 
 than the whole income. Losses will occur in adverse 
 times, and if they are not made up in prosperity, their 
 accumulation through a long series of years would be 
 
12 
 
 ruin. The enemies of the College might be pleased 
 with this, but it could hardly gratify its friends. Be- 
 sides, the capital must gradually increase, to counter- 
 balance the diminution of income, arising from the 
 gradual decrease in the rate of interest, which seems to 
 take place in every flourishing country. For the last 
 three or four years, too, we have lost nothing by bad 
 debts, and no wisdom or vigilance, can render this 
 good fortune perpetual. And, moreover, let the build- 
 ings be kept in as good repair as possible, they will 
 not last forever. The roofs, the floors, the very walls, 
 must be in time renewed, and something ought to be 
 reserved for this purpose, and something also to im- 
 prove and extend the Institution. And if three or 
 four thousand dollars a year, were laid up, for these 
 objects, which is more, I believe, than ever has been 
 done for five years in succession, should we be 
 doing as much in this particular for posterity, as our 
 fathers did for us ? Should we be doing even enough 
 to keep up the state of education in the College, to 
 the increasing demands of the country ? 
 
 It is asserted, that the funds from which this income 
 is derived, were given by the State, in order to make 
 education cheaper, and that all that income, therefore, 
 ought to be applied to this object. But how does it 
 appear that they were given by the State? Individuals 
 have given money too, and a great deal of it. The 
 assertion assumes, that their money has been expend- 
 ed, and that the money remaining is that given by the 
 State. But may not the fact be otherwise ? Nearly 
 all of the grants to the College by the State, were 
 
13 
 
 made for specific objects, and the money given, 
 was expended on those objects. Even of the last 
 grant of 1814, one quarter part was expressly given 
 for the benefit of poor but promising students, and 
 was so applied ; nearly another quarter was designed 
 and appropriated for building the Medical College ; 
 and more than the whole residue was expended hi 
 building University Hall. This seems to me, how- 
 ever, of comparatively little consequence, since neither 
 the State nor individuals, gave their money for the 
 sole purpose of making education cheaper, but full 
 as much, for that of making it better ; for that of 
 building up an Institution which should go on con- 
 stantly improving, to meet the expanding views, 
 and supply the growing wants, and sustain the 
 rising glories of our prosperous country. Shall it, 
 on the contrary, stand still ? What would the best 
 education, that could be obtained in New England 
 a hundred years ago, be good for now ? And 
 will not the best education of to-day, be deemed as 
 insufficient a hundred years hence ? I trust that it 
 will, Sir, and more so. The ultimate object of all 
 these donations, was the public good. Making edu- 
 cation cheap, is one mode of promoting that object, 
 but not the only one. Let not all the funds then be 
 applied to this alone. A great deal has been done in 
 this way. Let us do something in the other also, and 
 make it better. I will state a few of the measures, 
 which have been adopted, to render education cheap 
 here. It is estimated that the board, for which the 
 student pays one dollar and seventy-Jive cents a week, 
 
14 
 
 actually costs the College, taking all things into con- 
 sideration, at least two dollars and twenty-jive cents, 
 so that each student who boards in Commons, receives 
 half a dollar a week towards his board. It is not jet 
 three years, since the charge to the students, for in- 
 struction, rent, &c, was reduced from ninety-seven 
 dollars, to ninety dollars a year ; and, before making 
 any further reduction, it is best to have a little more 
 experience of our ability to bear this. 
 
 This sum of ninety dollars, may be thus apportion- 
 ed ; forty-eight for instruction, not half what is paid in 
 the best schools in this vicinity ; twelve for rent of 
 room ; six for heating and keeping in order the lecture 
 rooms, and other public apartments, used by under- 
 graduates ; twelve for the Steward, Commons, Cata- 
 logues, and Commencement dinners ; three for the 
 Librarian, and for keeping the Library of thirty-five 
 thousand volumes in order ; three for cleaning and 
 taking care of the student's rooms ; and six for 
 general repairs. Of the moderateness of the charge 
 for rent, I have already spoken. For every one of 
 the other charges, the College pays more than it 
 receives from the students. I will not trouble you 
 with the details of them all. The charge for instruc- 
 tion is much the most important. Now the College 
 pays exclusively of the Law School, Medical School 
 and Divinity School, for the President, Professors, and 
 other officers engaged in the instruction and discipline 
 of undergraduates, about twenty-two thousand dollars. 
 From two hundred and fifty students it receives forty- 
 eight dollars each, making twelve thousand. The 
 
15 
 
 friends of the students, therefore, certainly cannot 
 complain. They get now, a great deal more than 
 they pay for. In addition to what they gain in their 
 board, fuel and books, they get for ninety dollars a 
 year, an education which costs one hundred and fifty, 
 and which they could not purchase in any other part 
 of this country for any sum. When so much of the 
 price of their education is given to them, why 
 should they claim still more ? 
 
 The money, when any is happily saved, is not 
 kept by the College Government, to be divided among 
 themselves, but to be spent in the manner most 
 useful to the public. There is no difficulty in spend- 
 ing the money well ; the difficulty is to get it, and to 
 get enough of it to accomplish some great and useful 
 purpose. If this shall ever be done, and it shall be 
 applied to some purpose perfectly unobjectionable, 
 will not the College be condemned for spending 
 what they are now condemned for saving ? 1 hope 
 not, Sir, bur I fear it. How it will be spent I 
 know not, but it might be spent in many ways; 
 in building an Observatory, and buying instruments 
 to put into it; or a Library, and books to fill it; 
 or in founding Professorships, that are already much 
 wanted. But let us see whether the greater part 
 of this sum of eleven thousand dollars, which we are 
 supposed to have laid up this year, is not, after all, 
 in danger of being expended before the year is out. 
 Two thousand dollars of it, come from the Law 
 School, and must, therefore, rightfully be expended on 
 the Law School ; so that this sum is at once to be 
 
16 
 
 taken out of the account of what relates to the under- 
 graduates. Five thousand are appropriated to the 
 Library, which has been Ions grossly deficient in im- 
 portant books, and is so still. A Professor of Latin 
 has been appointed with a salary of twelve hundred 
 dollars a year ; nearly one thousand dollars are paid 
 for additional instruction in Elocution ; about eight 
 hundred haye been applied to enable the Professor of 
 Anatomy to give instruction to the undergraduates in 
 his department by models ; and the place of another 
 Professor, absent by leave on account of sickness, is 
 of course supplied at the expense of the College. All 
 these expenses will certainly leave no yery large sum 
 to be laid up for any general objects, however im- 
 portant. Indeed, it may be feared, that even this 
 year, our income will be hardly sufficient to meet the 
 demands on it. 
 
 Sir, I haye just now mentioned buying books as one 
 fit mode of spending the College funds. There is 
 nothing which has been so much complained of as our 
 appropriating so much money to the Library. There 
 is nothing, which I am more ready to defend. The 
 Library, great as it is, is still deficient, very deficient 
 in every department. Few of the Professors, I be- 
 lieve, can find in it the books necessary to enable 
 them to perform their duties to the College. 
 
 It has been stated, that till within three or four 
 years, nothing has been appropriated to the Library 
 from the general funds of the College since the Ame- 
 rican Revolution. When, therefore, we are asked, 
 ' why spend the enormous sum of five thousand dol- 
 
17 
 
 lars in one year upon the Library ? Why not rather 
 two thousand?' I ask, in turn, why not rather twenty 
 thousand ? The only answer I can give to my own 
 question is, that 1 thought five thousand the most we 
 could appropriate to that object, with a due regard to 
 all the other interests of the Institution. If the books 
 bought are all good books, selected so as to be best, 
 adapted to our present and most pressing wants, highly 
 and permanently useful, and cheap in proportion to 
 their real value, I can hardly find any other limit 
 than our means, to my willingness to buy them. 
 There is no department in the Library at all to be 
 compared in extent to that, which contains the works 
 relating to America, but even this is not complete. I 
 had not been in London three weeks last summer, be- 
 fore I bought for the College, with their money, but 
 not without authority, (our enemies are suspicious,) 
 four hundred volumes, all relating to America, not one 
 of them before in the Library, and many not in the 
 country. One of these was the best book on Geogra- 
 phy that existed in the time of Columbus, showing 
 exactly what was his starting point, what tools he had 
 to work with, and of course how much was due to 
 his own great genius. Happening a few days after it 
 was sent to America, to mention my good fortune in 
 finding it, to Washington Irving, he told me that Co- 
 lumbus's own copy of it still existed in Spain, full of 
 notes in his own and his brother Bartholomew's hand- 
 writing, and that if I could find another copy he would 
 have a facsimile made in it of all those notes, which 
 he stated to be highly interesting, and to contain some 
 3 
 
18 
 
 facts not known to the world. Of course, for so in- 
 teresting a purpose, I ordered a copy to be procured, 
 if possible, by any labor, or at any price. But after 
 the most diligent search, it was impossible to find one 
 in London, Paris, or Madrid. This result proved its 
 value, and the lovers of Dollars and Cents may be 
 gratified to learn that the College can sell it to-mor- 
 row for ten times what it cost them. 
 
 But it has been gravely and repeatedly said, ' what 
 need of more books ? You have more books now 
 than any body wants to read.' That is true ; but not 
 more than every body wants to read, or to consult, or 
 to refer to. A man does not go into a Library to read 
 the volumes in order as they stand on the shelves, or 
 to count them. He goes there to find all the good 
 books that have ever been written on the subject on 
 which his mind is then engaged. To find exactly 
 what he wants, exactly when he wants it, may save 
 him the labor of a life, or make that life a blessing to 
 mankind. Give to Dr. Bowditch thirty thousand vol- 
 umes, and it would not compensate him or the public 
 for the loss to him of hrs one La Place. In a country 
 where any value is attached to science or to letters, 
 there ought to be at least one great library containing 
 the means of excitement and improvement for talents 
 of every kind, food for all tastes, weapons for every 
 hand ; and wherever that Library shall be, there will 
 be the centre of instruction for the whole country ; 
 there will be the great establishment for education. 
 Moreover, nothing will tend so effectually to build up 
 such an establishment and attract to it efficient teach- 
 
19 
 
 ers, as a Library equal to their wants ; and we must 
 not be content to have only books that will be con- 
 stantly used, and neglect to obtain those above the 
 common reach. 
 
 Let me suppose, or rather let me state, for I be- 
 lieve it is a fact, that a most accomplished Profes- 
 sor wishes a particular edition of a book, which is not 
 to be found in the country, and desires us to send for 
 it, to enable him to explain to his pupils more fully 
 the meaning of the author he is required to teach 
 them, the charm of his sentiments, and the graces of 
 his style. It is one of those classic writers, who have 
 been regarded for more than two thousand years with 
 admiration and delight by every man of cultivated in- 
 tellect, and refined taste ; who have been his teachers 
 in youth, his models perhaps in manhood and his 
 comforters in age, his companions at home, his 
 guides abroad, shedding light on every path and 
 breathing consolation in every sorrow. Will it be a 
 sufficient answer to tell him, that though we have not 
 the book he wants, we have a great many that he does 
 not want, and more than he can read, and bid him 
 study them ? If the only use of books were to teach 
 us our letters, the argument would be a good one. 
 Any book would do for that. But it cannot be list- 
 ened to for a moment, by any one, who ever entered 
 a library for the purpose of instruction to himself or 
 benefit to others. 
 
 The clamors against all classical learning, which 
 have been so current among us within a few years, 
 have also been pressed into the service of the enemies 
 
M 
 
 Ol llanard. The CMM Of ancient learning lias heen 
 M ahl\ defended, that 1 iici d mj little on this head. 
 T<> the (jm-viioii what advanta-e is there iu mak- 
 
 ioe nse of Greek and Latin sentences, when addn 
 
 in- those w ho cannot understand them ? I answer, 
 none at all, and nohod\ dot B it now -a-davs that know - 
 an\ Utter. It was fa^hionahle unci . hut it would he 
 fantastic now. It is in \aiu to talk of the U antics of 
 the an< ients to those who \\\\\ not look at them, and 
 cotild not see them if the\ did, and ut will condemn 
 them ; though* since they have no means of forming 
 any judgment whatewr. they have no right to pro- 
 nounoe any. 
 
 But if any younij man, lia\inLi some slight acquaint- 
 ance with the classics, should doubt whether there he 
 any practical advantage in eulti\ Sting it, let him make 
 a lew experiments of this kind, and then judge for him- 
 self. Let him select some striking passage in one of the 
 ancient authors, no matter what pa^sniM ; let him take 
 if he please, that gem of ancient eloquence, the Funeral 
 Oration, in the second hook of Thucwlides, and let him 
 translate it into English as well as be can : and then let 
 him look at his work, and what w ill he see ? If he has 
 any taste or feeling, or any perception of eloquence, 
 what will he see : Mis version shall he as good as you 
 phase, w it Ii the exact form and features of the origi- 
 nal, and every shade and line ; hut where is the 
 graceful movement, the life, the inspiration? Let him 
 turn it over and over to find out tin; reason of the dif- 
 ference, and try to mend it at intervals, and bj and by 
 be will find, that though lie has nothing like the origi- 
 
21 
 
 nal, he has something much better than his own first 
 sketch. After all, to be sure, he has only a transla- 
 tion ; nothing of what is called practically useful ; 
 nothing he can go to town-meeting and repeat. But 
 after a little practice in this way, he will perceive that 
 he has acquired the ability to express every thing he 
 has to say, more promptly and effectively, and this 
 faculty he can carry to town-meeting, or anywhere 
 else. And are not frequent and successful attempts 
 to imitate good models, the best means of improve- 
 ment in every pursuit ? It is difficult indeed ; but it is 
 always more difficult to learn an art, than to apply it. 
 
 This is mentioned, however, only as an experiment 
 and exercise for youth. The true w 7 ay to study an 
 ancient author is to abandon ourselves to him entirely, 
 and let him bear us along with his current. We shall 
 thus unconsciously imbibe some of his qualities, and 
 acquire without effort, nay, with delight, greater ad- 
 vantage than the student can gain by the laborious 
 process just mentioned. We may thus learn from our 
 model not only to speak, but to think and to feel ; may 
 gain not merely facility of expression, but a portion of 
 the spirit of his eloquence ; and catch something of 
 the freedom and dignity of his action, instead of a 
 scrap of his mantle. This is the way to use the an- 
 cients, and the w 7 ay to make the moderns. 
 
 But why not take for models our best English wri- 
 ters ? Because they are not so good models. Who 
 compares our Statues with the Venus or the Apollo ; 
 or our Churches with the Parthenon ? And in the art 
 of writing, the difference between the ancients and the 
 
M 
 
 moderns is greater than in any other art. It is ask 
 ing no great concession to be permits d to assert, that 
 people, in general, are moat struck with what is moat 
 striking. .Now, who will deny, that in the finest of 
 the ancient writers, the beauties are most striking, 
 and the faults hardlj perceptible? And who will as- 
 sert it of our own: In simplicity and precision of 
 thought, concentration of feeling, and that happiness 
 of arrangement and connexion, which make a work 
 
 one compact and harmonious whole, instead of a col- 
 lection of disjointed parts, We cannot pretend to he 
 their rivals. If we should learn nothing from them 
 
 hut brevity, it would be a lesson well worth the labor. 
 Many of the most perfect orations, which have come 
 down to ns from antiquity, maj be spoken in less than 
 an hour, and I douht whether there is one, that would 
 require two hours for its delivery. We ourselves have 
 had a practical lesson about choosing modern models, 
 which ought to last at least for a century. The favor- 
 ite model of the last generation, and a good part of 
 this, w as Doctor Samuel Johnson, and ever) body's 
 thoughts were to be clad in his language. A great 
 man no douht, one of the greatest in modern times, 
 and so much the better for my argument; but his style 
 was lit lor nobody but himself. When all the world 
 would imitate him, what was the consequence ? An 
 accumulation of sonorous epithets, instead of simpli- 
 city, precision, and force : and pages to express what 
 might be said better in a single sentence. 
 
 It has been objected to the College, with our other 
 literary Institutions, that education there is not suffi- 
 
23 
 
 ciently practical. Men ought to be educated, it is 
 said, for the business of life, and their minds ought to 
 be filled with the knowledge of facts and principles. 
 This is enough. They will find out for themselves the 
 way to communicate them. He who can think well, 
 we are told, will speak well. This is not always true. 
 He who cannot think well, to be sure, cannot speak 
 well ; and it is best for him to be silent and to mind his 
 work. But he who can think well and does think 
 well, will he not speak all the better for knowing how 
 to speak too ? The giant should not despise his ar- 
 mour. Sampson himself would have done better 
 with a sword ; and we, who are not Sampsons, can- 
 not safely rely upon his weapon. Franklin possessed 
 natural powers enough, one would think, to satisfy 
 any body ; and he must have been conscious of his 
 strength. But he chose to fight with weapons, and he 
 went to work to make them. He, to be sure, took a 
 modern for his model, not having access to the an- 
 cients ; but he was a man to succeed under every 
 disadvantage. He tells us himself, how he toiled for 
 years to form his style. It cost him more labor to 
 make it, than ever it did to use it. But was it not 
 worth making ? What a weapon ! Polished, keen, 
 effective ; making every blow tell ; every touch 
 electric. 
 
 The other charges against the College, I believe all 
 relate to Theological subjects. First, with regard to 
 the Hollis Professor, it is said, that the Statutes of the 
 Founder are violated, in allowing that Office to be 
 holden by one, who does not profess to believe in 
 
24 
 
 the Trinity. It is alleged, that Mr. Hollis was a 
 Trinitarian. But cannot a Trinitarian found a Pro- 
 fessorship, to which those, who differ from him in sen- 
 timent, may be eligible ? He was also a Christian, 
 and may he not have thought it more important to 
 promote Christianity in its broadest sense, than any 
 particular modification of it : Mr. Hollis was a Bap- 
 tist, but he does not require that his Professor shall 
 belong to the same sect. The question is not what 
 were his own religious sentiments, but what he meant 
 to require of his Professor, or rather what he has in 
 fact required. Tne provision usually cited in this 
 controversy is the following Statute : 
 
 ; XI. That the person chosen from lime to time to be a Pro- 
 fessor, be a man of solid learning in Divinity, of sound or ortho- 
 c:x principles, one who is well gi .';-:- d to teach, of a sober and 
 pious life, and of a good conversation.' 
 
 There is another passage, however, which seems to 
 me not less important : • The Plan or Form for the 
 Professor of Divinity to agree to at his inauguration. 5 
 
 ' That he repeat his Oaths to the Civil Government : that he 
 declare it as his belief that the Scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testaments are the only perfect rule of iaith and manners ; and 
 that he promise to explain and open the Scriptures to his pupils 
 with integrity and faithfulness, according to the best light that 
 God shall give him. That he promise to promote true piety 
 and Godliness by his example and instruction ; that he consult 
 the gccd of the College and the peace of the Churches of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ on all occasions : and that he religiously ob- 
 serve the Statutes of the Founder, and all such other Statutes 
 and Orders as shall be made by the College not repugnant 
 thereunto.' 
 
25 
 
 Let me call your particular attention, Sir, to the 
 manner in which he is to explain the Scriptures. It is 
 not according to the light, which was given to Luther 
 or to Calvin, nor according to the light given to the 
 Founder, nor even according to the light given to the 
 Professor himself, at the time of his election, but 
 'according to the best light that God shall give him ;' 
 that is, of course, at any time. Now, supposing the 
 Scriptures interpreted according to the best light given 
 to the Professor, either when chosen or at any subse- 
 quent period, should be opposed to the Trinity, is he not 
 here most expressly commanded to explain them ac- 
 cording to his light ? But he is also commanded to be 
 sound or orthodox, and if Hollis by this meant Trinita- 
 rian, then he must at the same time, support the Trin- 
 ity. How shall we reconcile this contradiction ? Is it 
 not possible that Mr. Hollis might have thought Ortho- 
 doxy to be a belief in the Scriptures exactly as they 
 are written, allowing each man to interpret them 
 according to the best light, which shall be given to him, 
 whatever colour that light may put on them. Might 
 he not have believed in the Trinity himself, without 
 condemning those, who sincerely differed from him on 
 this point ; and without deciding it to be so absolutely 
 essential, that all, who doubt it, must inevitably perish ? 
 Is not this possible? And if so, will not the supposi- 
 tion reconcile this seeming contradiction, and make 
 all his directions plain, intelligible and consistent? If 
 this question be answered in the affirmative, all doubt 
 is ended ; for surely common sense and common rea- 
 son, require us to put such construction on every part 
 4 
 
26 
 
 of an instrument, as may make the whole of it consist- 
 ent with itself. 
 
 Some events, which occurred in the life of Mr. 
 Hollis, may throw light upon this matter. In the 
 year 1718, a few dissenting Clergymen at Exeter and 
 other places, in the west of England, having preached 
 sentiments which savoured of some doubt in the Trini- 
 ty, were examined by their parishioners, for the purpose 
 of ascertaining their opinions in relation to that doctrine ; 
 and when it appeared that they disbelieved it, were dis- 
 missed from thehroffices. This led to further inquiries 
 of the same nature, and producing the same results, 
 and finally to a controversy, which agitated the whole 
 body of the English Dissenters. At length, a meeting 
 of the Dissenting Clergy, in and near London, was 
 called to be holden at Salter's Hall, in that city, to 
 consider of advices to be sent to their brethren in the 
 West. Shortly before the time appointed for this meet- 
 ing, a Committee of gentlemen, belonging to the three 
 denominations of Dissenters, (of which Mr. Barrington, 
 afterwards Lord Barrington, was Chairman, and Mr. 
 Hollis, himself, was a, member,) prepared "a paper 
 of advices," with the design of healing the breaches, 
 that had been made, and promoting charity and 
 forbearance ; which paper they recommended to this 
 meeting of the Clergy, for their adoption. Its great 
 object was, to disapprove the setting up any form of 
 men's invention, in matters of faith ; or any other 
 test, than that unerring form of sound words, the 
 Holy Scriptures. The Clergy met, and one of them 
 proposed amending this " paper of advices," by in- 
 
serting a declaration of their own belief in the Trinity, 
 so that they might not be suspected of indifference to 
 the truth. This proposition was rejected, by a vote 
 °f fifty-seven, against fifty-three. It was then propos- 
 ed, that, before acting on the advices, they should 
 voluntarily sign a declaration, of their belief in the 
 Trinity, simply to prevent the fact from being doubt- 
 ed. This was resisted, on the ground, that any such 
 statement, would seem to warrant the claim of a 
 similar statement from others, since the number and 
 respectability of the meeting would of itself, confer 
 some authority on their declaration, and give it 
 the effect of a Creed or Test. Upon this question, 
 whether any such declaration of their own belief, 
 should be made or not, the meeting separated into 
 two parties, and a controversy arose, which raged for 
 some time all over England, gave rise to a multi- 
 tude of pamphlets, and ended, as such controversies 
 usually end, in rendering both sides more violent, and 
 more obstinate in their respective opinions. 
 
 Meanwhile, the two parties met in different places. 
 One made its declaration of belief in the Trinity, and 
 then sent its address, recommending peace and modera- 
 tion. The other, refusing to declare any belief at all, 
 sent an address, insisting that, the Holy Scriptures them- 
 selves, are the only rule of faith. The latter, though 
 most of them as good Trinitarians as ever lived, had 
 their names published in what was called " The 
 Black List — a list of the names, of those Dissenting 
 Ministers, who refused to subscribe the declaration for 
 the Blessed Trinity." Mr. Mollis' opinion on this 
 
28 
 
 subject, is apparent from one of his letters, dated 
 March 1, 1721. 
 
 * I believe all the gentlemen concerned in signing the letter, 
 of whom I was one of the meanest in character, were very far 
 from any plot against the honour of our Lord Jesus, whom we 
 believe God over all, blessed forever. But if it must be called 
 a plot, it was to restrain a few over heated zealots from too rash 
 censuring their brethren ; and to look back, I think had there 
 not been a majority against subscribing the roll at Salter's Hall, 
 at that time, such a Test would have run through all the 
 Churches in England, by this time, which would have endan- 
 gered many schisms, and silenced many useful preachers, and 
 I rejoice their plot did not succeed.' 
 
 Another letter from Mr. Hollis to a friend in New- 
 England, dated August 18, 1722, after mentioning a 
 pamphlet, which he had received from R. I. Morris, 
 then a teacher in the College, proceeds thus : 
 
 6 1 wish you, Sir, to instruct him a little further in the chris- 
 tian doctrine of more extensive charity, and not (to) judge too 
 hastily of his neighbour, and exclude from salvation every one, 
 that differs from him in explication and belief of the article of 
 the Trinity ; a glorious truth it is, but the manner of explaining 
 it appears difficult, so difficult, that scarce two can say exactly 
 alike, except they agree on a form, and agree to write after it.' 
 
 In the History of the Dissenting Churches, by 
 Walter Wilson, a decided Trinitarian, the paper of 
 advices signed by Lord Barrington and Mr. Hollis, is 
 thus spoken of: 
 
 1 In the mean time, a paper of advices was drawn up with 
 the professed design of healing the breaches, that had been 
 made, and promoting charity and mutual forbearance, but the 
 real motive was to screen the ministers at Exeter.'* 
 
 *Vol. III. p. 517. 
 
29 
 
 If this remark is intended to insinuate that those, 
 who signed that paper, desired to screen the Exeter 
 Ministers on private or personal grounds, or had any 
 other motive than that, which they professed, it is not 
 candid nor just. But if it only means, that their ob- 
 ject was to heal the breaches, that had been made, and 
 promote charity and mutual forbearance, by preventing 
 Clergymen in Exeter and elsewhere, from being turn- 
 ed out of office, or from being censured or questioned, 
 for disbelief of the Trinity, the remark is undoubtedly 
 correct. It is most manifest, that this was the precise 
 object of Mr. Hollis and his friends. Is it not utterly 
 incredible then, that those, who at this day, desire 
 to have any man turned out of his office or compel- 
 led to resign it, or subjected to censure or scrutiny, 
 on account of his disbelief of the Trinity, should pre- 
 tend to shelter themselves under the authority of Hol- 
 lis— whose example is their condemnation ? The 
 declaration above cited, and especially that clause of 
 it, which states the Scriptures to he the only perfect 
 rule of faith and manners, as well as the Statutes 
 themselves, were evidently drawn up with a full recol- 
 lection of this controversy, and of the letter of advices 
 recommended to the Clergy. 
 
 There is a document in the College, dated August 
 2, 1721, and entitled ' Kules and Orders relating to a 
 Divinity Professor, in Harvard College, New England, 
 drawn up at the request of Mr. Thomas Hollis, and 
 unanimously recommended by us, as necessary to an- 
 swer his useful design.' It is signed by seven Clergy- 
 men, and agrees in every thing material to this dis- 
 
30 
 
 cassion, with the statutes adopted by Mr. Hollis, 
 in establishing his Professorship, which statutes bear 
 date January 10, 1722. The form of the Declaration 
 was added afterwards. Of these seven Clergymen, 
 one signed the declaration of belief in the Trinity, at 
 Salter's Hall ; one refused to join either party in 
 that controversy, and five are on the Black List. 
 Now is it possible to believe, that Hollis and his 
 friends on the Black List,, meant to require his 
 Professor to submit to a Test, and formally to declare 
 his belief in the Trinity? — the very thing they had 
 been contending against so strenuously. - He is to 
 declare, that he will observe the statutes, and there- 
 fore be sound or orthodox; and this, we are told, 
 they meant for a declaration of belief in the Trinity. 
 He is to declare at the same time, that he believes the 
 Scriptures to be the only perfect rule of faith and 
 manners, and promise that he will open them to his 
 pupils, with integrity and faithfulness, according to the 
 best light that God shall give him. This was the 
 doctrine of the opposite party, in the great struggle 
 then hardly ended ; and if these two things can stand 
 together in the same Instrument, it is a pity, that the 
 discovery was not made in season to reconcile the 
 disputants, or to prevent their rupture. But if Hollis 
 thought it sound and orthodox, to believe in the 
 Scriptures, as interpreted by the conscience of each 
 believer for himself, then his direction how to explain 
 and open them, is not a contradiction of the soundness 
 or orthodoxy which he requires, but an explanation of 
 it. Is it not manifest that this was his opinion ? 
 
31 
 
 And was he not right ? Is not this true orthodoxy, 
 and every thing else sectarianism ? What is the use 
 of a creed ? Do not the words of Scripture, express 
 the meaning of Scripture better than any others can ? 
 Are not the exact words of every written instrument the 
 best evidence, and in law, the only admissible evidence 
 of its meaning ? It is said that a man must assent to 
 something, in order to show that he is a Christian, 
 Why not offer him the Scriptures ? It takes no longer 
 time to assent to a long instrument, than to a short 
 one, if it has been read and considered beforehand. 
 But then different people interpret the Scriptures 
 differently, and creeds are made to prevent this. That 
 is the very thing, which no man has a right to prevent ; 
 for to do so, is preventing freedom of conscience. 
 We are told, however, that every man must have a 
 creed, that what he believes, is his creed, and that to 
 state it, is only stating his opinions. If this were in- 
 deed true, if a creed were nothing but an exposition 
 of what is believed by him who makes it, no reason- 
 able man could object to it. But it is not so. It is an 
 authoritative statement of opinion, and purports to set 
 forth, not simply what a man in fact believes, but 
 what he ought to believe. This difference, though 
 slight in form, is mighty in effect, and inveterate 
 enough in its venom, to poison the whole fountain 
 of Charity. 
 
 There is precisely the same difference, between 
 an opinion and a creed, that there is between the 
 argument of Counsel, and the decision of the Court. 
 The Counsel sets forth his opinion of the law, 
 
32 
 
 with his reasons and authorities to support it ; but 
 when he has said all, he has said nothing binding 
 on others, or even on himself, or which any body 
 ought to obey. But when the Court gives its opinion 
 of the law, this binds itself, and all the world within 
 its jurisdiction, and every body must obey it. It is 
 true, that a Creed is not said to derive its force from 
 the authority of its framers, but from the fact of its 
 expressing the true sense of the Scriptures. But 
 whether it does express the true sense of the Scrip- 
 tures or not, is the very question at issue. It says 
 authoritatively that it does ; and that all men ought to 
 find the same sense in them. And this is exactly 
 what no human authority has any right to say. In 
 stating that creeds assume authority, I do not mean 
 that they claim, at the present day, the authority of 
 Civil Power, but they do claim the authority of Truth, 
 which is that of commanding assent. 
 
 The advocates of creeds in our age, admit, indeed, 
 that the religious sentiments of an individual ought not 
 to be controlled by the authority of the State, or by 
 any society, to which he has not voluntarily attached 
 himself. But in this exception lies all the evil. A 
 man has no right, however voluntarily, to transfer to 
 others the power of dictating his faith : and others 
 have no right to accept that power. It is not merely 
 freedom from the unjust exercise of civil authority, that 
 is to be maintained ; but freedom of opinion from the 
 authority of opinion, and the man who surrenders this, 
 surrenders his liberty. Any association of men, there- 
 fore, for the purpose of applying a particular human 
 
33 
 
 creed as the rule or measure of faith, though it be only 
 of their own faith, is an association for a bad purpose. 
 These remarks are not applicable to the articles of the 
 Church of England, if understood, as Dr. Paley under- 
 stands them, to be articles of peace. They would pre- 
 sent a very different question, which it is not my design 
 now to consider. But it is urged, ' How can two walk 
 together unless they are agreed ?' They cannot, un- 
 less they are agreed upon their path ; but they may 
 disagree about other things. Let the path be the 
 Scripture in the words of the Scripture, and all men 
 may walk in it together in charity and peace. With- 
 out doubt, every man may endeavor to propagate his 
 own religious sentiments by reason, argument, and 
 persuasion, and especially by showing in his own con- 
 duct, that they are productive of all the virtues, 
 including charity; but this does not give him au- 
 thority to condemn the sentiments of others. He may 
 allege, that they do not accord with his belief and his 
 convictions, but he has no jurisdiction to decide, that 
 they are repugnant to the Scriptures. Let no one 
 suppose, however, that his belief is a matter of indif- 
 ference, and that he may choose what faith he pleases. 
 The only opinion, which any man can innocently hold 
 on any important religious question, is that, which he 
 finds after faithful and diligent search, by his own 
 light, to have the sanction of the Scriptures. 
 
 But it has been asked, if I really believe that certain 
 doctrines are essential to Christianity, may I not as- 
 sert this ? I answer, certainly, you may assert that 
 you believe them essential, for that is an opinion ; 
 5 
 
34 
 
 but not decide that they are essential, for that is a 
 judgment. I would ask these inquirers in turn, what 
 they think of him, who interpreting the Scriptures ac- 
 cording to his best light, considers the same doctrines 
 unessential ? If they reply that he is right, they are 
 orthodox ; if they say that he is wrong, they are secta- 
 rians. They are not asked to pronounce their own 
 opinions erroneous. Their opinions are right for 
 them, and his opinions right for him. But they can- 
 not claim to determine what is right in the abstract, 
 independently of him or themselves ; for whatever is 
 right in the abstract, however determined, is binding 
 upon all men, and of course they have no right to de- 
 cide it. Their argument is tantamount to this, £ I 
 sincerely believe, that I have a right to control the 
 consciences of men, and therefore I will assert it, 
 and act accordingiy,~for it is a violation of my Chris- 
 tian liberty, to prevent my acting according to my 
 belief.' This needs no refutation. In the narrow 
 little court of his own conscience, every individual 
 is Supreme Judge. The Theologians on all sides, 
 may argue the cause before him, and set forth their 
 opinions, their reasons and authorities. But after all, 
 he must decide for himself; and if he has any regard 
 for his rights or his liberty, he will let no one of 
 them all usurp his power. This is the only true or- 
 thodoxy, and I entertain no doubt, that it was the 
 orthodoxy of Thomas Hollis. 
 
 But it is further objected, that a part of the Profes- 
 sor's salary is paid from the College funds. Now 
 how can this be otherwise ? Since a century ago, the 
 
85 
 
 College made a contract, that for the payment of a 
 certain sum of money, they would support such a 
 Professor for ever. If the interest of the sum thus 
 paid is sufficient for his support, it is very well ; but 
 if not, the College must make up the difference, or 
 violate the contract. This always has been the case, 
 and always must be so, until we shall be willing to 
 infringe the obligation, or unable to fulfil it. Would 
 it be fair or just to take funds, given to us at the pre- 
 sent day for the extension and improvement of the 
 Theological Department, and apply them, not to this 
 purpose, but to that of relieving ourselves from the 
 burden of an obligation contracted by our own volun- 
 tary act, in the last century ? 
 
 But there is a Theological School connected with 
 the College, and this school is said to be sectarian. 
 In what University of New England is not Theology 
 taught ? The College has always held funds, to aid 
 graduates in pursuing this study ; or at least for more 
 than a century ; and the Hollis Professor was always 
 bound to give them instruction. In the year 1816, a 
 large sum was raised by subscription, to improve the 
 education in this Department. Nobody at that time, 
 suggested the idea of abolishing it. If it was worth 
 having, it was worth improving ; and the money was 
 accepted. It was to be appropriated to the use for 
 which it was given, by a Joint Board composed of the 
 Corporation and of five trustees, chosen by a Society, 
 consisting of the contributors to the fund. About eight 
 years afterwards, another sum was raised by subscrip- 
 tion, to erect a building, for the use of the students in 
 
36 
 
 that Institution, and was so appropriated. At the same 
 time, it was agreed, that the Society of Contributors 
 to the Theological Fund, should appoint a Board of 
 Directors, who should regulate and oversee the Theo- 
 logical Seminary, under the obligation, of course, to 
 submit all their proceedings, according to the Consti- 
 tution of the College, to the revision of the President 
 and Fellows, who are responsible to the Overseers and 
 to the Public, for the management of every part of the 
 Institution, and cannot get rid of that responsibility if 
 they would. In this state, things continued till last 
 year, when the Trustees and Directors, entertaining 
 the opinion, that the public interest did not require 
 them to serve the College, in that capacity any longer, 
 communicated this opinion to the College Government. 
 What could be done or said ? They had served the 
 Public seven years, gratuitously, zealously, ably, suc- 
 cessfully ; and how could they be compelled to serve 
 it longer? All that could be said, W 7 as, that we were 
 grateful for their services ; and if any other eight gen- 
 tlemen will undertake the .same labor, for the relief 
 and assistance of the College Government, it will no 
 doubt be equally grateful to them for their exertions. 
 
 Last year one of the Professors in the Theological 
 School resigned his office, and another was appointed 
 in his place. This opportunity was taken to alter the 
 Statutes or Regulations of the Department, and the 
 new Statutes were the subject of the discussion last 
 winter in the Board of Overseers. They had no 
 other object or effect than to determine the duties 
 of the different members of the Theological Faculty 
 
37 
 
 within the Department itself, and to empower that 
 Faculty to regulate the Seminary under the control 
 of the Corporation ; except in providing, that the 
 duty of performing the usual services in the College 
 Chapel should now be assigned to the three Profes- 
 sors, and not as formerly to the Senior Professor 
 alone. The President is named head of the Theo- 
 logical Faculty ; but so he was in the original Stat- 
 utes, for which these w r ere substituted. He was always 
 head of this, as w r ell as of the Faculties of Law and 
 of Medicine, and of every other Department of the 
 College, for the plain reason, that it is his peculiar and 
 appropriate duty to see that the laws are executed in 
 them all. 
 
 But the College Government has sometimes been 
 blamed not for what it has done, but for what it has 
 omitted to do ; for not separating the Theological In* 
 stitution entirely from the College. Sir, I entered 
 the Corporation with the strongest conviction, that this 
 object was most important and desirable, perceiving- 
 how much prejudice against the College was caused 
 by the union with it of the Theological Seminary, and 
 I sat down with a serious design to devise the means 
 of accomplishing it. But a difficulty met me in the 
 outset, which I never could surmount, and which still 
 seems to me insuperable. The funds were all ex- 
 pressly given and solemnly accepted for the purpose 
 of promoting Theological education in Harvard Uni- 
 versity. Not a dollar of them could be appropriated 
 otherwise consistently with the will of the donors, who 
 are so numerous, that it would be quite impossible to 
 
38 
 
 procure their assent to a change of the appropriation ; 
 and many of whom, indeed, are dead. It may have 
 been unwise to contract this engagement. But since 
 it is contracted, neither wisdom nor honesty will per- 
 mit its violation. All that can be done, since the De- 
 partment must exist in the College, is to take care that 
 it be Orthodox, according to Hollis ; that the teach- 
 ers, while maintaining their own opinions, whatever 
 they may be, which it is clearly their right and their 
 duty to do, shall maintain them as arguments, not as de- 
 crees ; as opinions, not as a creed having authority. I 
 hope that they will do so, and will state fairly to their 
 pupils the tenets of other Christian sects, and inform 
 them in what works these several tenets are most ably 
 vindicated and maintained ; and tell them, after all, 
 that none of these doctrines are obligatory, that none 
 of them are even right for him, who does not find 
 them according to his ow T n light in the Scriptures. So 
 I hope, and so I believe. 
 
 But it has been asked, why not put a fair propor- 
 tion of Trinitarians into this school, and let each doc- 
 trine be defended by its friends ? Sir, if there were a 
 vacancy in that school and the man best qualified to 
 fill it were a Trinitarian, provided that he were ortho- 
 dox also, according to my understanding of orthodoxy, 
 I would vote for him to-morrow. But if he would go 
 there to maintain, that his opinions were right in the 
 abstract, and of course binding, and those of his col- 
 leagues abstractly and essentially wrong, and there- 
 fore inadmissible and dangerous ; and to convert a 
 Seminary, which ought to be a place of secluded and 
 
39 
 
 diligent study, into an arena for Theological combats, 
 I would not enable him to accomplish this design. 
 The only Trinitarians, to whom I object as officers of 
 the Theological Seminary, are those, who are not in 
 this sense orthodox ; and to Unitarians not thus or- 
 thodox, I equally object. 
 
 The assertion, which has been made, that a portion 
 of the money paid by undergraduates for their educa- 
 tion, has been applied to the support of the Theologi- 
 cal Seminary, is not correct. It has been already 
 shown that the undergraduates do not pay nearly the 
 whole expense of their own education, and that 
 the deficiency in the salary of the Hollis Professor is 
 made up from the funds of the College by virtue of 
 the original contract. The whole amount paid to the 
 other officers in that Department is thirty-five hundred 
 dollars, while the net income of the funds belonging 
 to it, including the amount of the annual contribution 
 at the lowest rate yet received, and excluding the 
 Hollis fund, is stated to me from official sources at 
 thirty-eight hundred and ninety-six dollars. 
 
 It is objected that the preachers in the College 
 Chapel are Unitarians. But then no student is re- 
 quired to hear them. Every one may attend any 
 other church, which he or his parents prefer. Our 
 adversaries themselves admit the existing law to be 
 right in this respect ; but they still insist, that the old 
 law allowing the privilege of attending another church 
 to Episcopalians only, was most narrow and illiberal, 
 and evinces the sectarian spirit in which the College 
 Government is administered. This one word ' Epis- 
 
40 
 
 eopalian,' is detected and seized on, and without the 
 least inquiry into the occasion or circumstances of its 
 use, we are instantly condemned ; and all who are not 
 Episcopalians are called on to resent the distinction as 
 injurious to themselves. Now the real truth is, that 
 when this law was passed, there were, as I am in- 
 formed, only two places of public worship in the vil- 
 lage of Cambridge ; one the church of Dr. Holmes, a 
 good Trinitarian, at which the students regularly at- 
 tended, and the other, the Episcopal church ; and 
 the law allowing those, who did not like to at- 
 tend Dr. Holmes, to attend the Episcopal church, 
 granted all, that could be granted. The legislators 
 did not think of enumerating all possible Christian 
 sects, and providing, that whenever any one of them 
 should erect a place of worship in Cambridge, the 
 students might attend there. And this is what is 
 called illiberality. Other churches are now erected, 
 and the students are allowed to attend any, which they 
 please. It is true, that the law was not altered, as 
 soon as a new meeting-house was built ; but I am not 
 aware, that any body asked for its alteration. There 
 could hardly be a motive for it, since the practice was 
 always more indulgent than the law. Any student 
 might always apply to the President, and if he could 
 satisfy him, that he had conscientious scruples, and 
 was not merely capricious, might have those scruples 
 gratified. It is not a great many years, since there 
 was a Jew in Harvard College, who was expressly 
 permitted to pass Saturday with friends of his own 
 faith in Boston, and to abstain from all Christian ex- 
 
41 
 
 ercises on the following day. Catholics have been 
 there also, and they were allowed to attend the Cath- 
 olic church in Boston, on Sundays, and on all other 
 holydays, obligatory according to their religion, nu- 
 merous as they are, and they were excused from any 
 attendance in College on those days. I have heard of 
 a Sandemanian, too, who was expressly permitted to 
 worship no where, and to pass the Sabbath in his 
 father's house, and all this under the old law. What 
 can we do, or what can we say, to secure ourselves 
 against such attacks as these ? 
 
 But it is alleged, that the prayers are made by the 
 Professors in Theology, and may pervert the minds of 
 the pupils. Surely, no one in New-England can con- 
 tend, that so large a family should not have any morn- 
 ing and evening prayers. It is true, that the Theologi- 
 cal Professors pray ; but who else should pray ? And, 
 after all, what is the objection to their prayers. The 
 Rev. Dr. Codman, who is incapable of perverting the 
 truth, for the benefit of any cause, states it distinctly 
 thus ; 'I do not pretend to say, that the officiating 
 Professors will introduce subjects of controversy into 
 their prayers ; I believe them to be too wise, and 
 too serious. But if consistent with themselves, they 
 will certainly omit many things, which the children of 
 the orthodox part of the community have been accus- 
 tomed to hear from the lips of their pious parents, at 
 the domestic altar.' Now, Sir, what is this charge ? 
 It is expressly admitted, that the prayers will contain 
 no matter of controversy ; nothing to startle the most 
 timid conscience. But then they will omit some pe- 
 6 
 
42 
 
 ^uliar doctrines. The objection is, not that they con- 
 tain Sectarianism, but that they omit Sectarianism. 
 That is the charge, that is the sin, and that is the 
 truth. 
 
 It has also been asserted, that none but Unitarians 
 are ever appointed to office, in Harvard College, and 
 this assertion has been so often repeated without con- 
 tradiction, that it seems to be taken for granted that 
 it is true, and that men are appointed to office there 
 because they are Unitarians. Let us, at last, inquire 
 into the facts. On a recent occasion, when a gentle- 
 man whom the Corporation thought the best qualified 
 for an office in their gift, was asked if he would ac- 
 cept it in case of his election ; he expressed his willing- 
 ness to do so ; but thought it fair to inform the Cor- 
 poration beforehand, (having, no doubt, heard all these 
 reports about its Sectarianism,) that he was not a 
 Unitarian but a Trinitarian. "With this information 
 the Board proceeded to the election, and he was 
 chosen unanimously ; not for his Trinitarianism ; this 
 had no influence one way or the other ; but on ac- 
 count of his fitness for the office. 
 
 Since I began this letter, Sir, I have taken a list of 
 the College officers, and marked the names of all, who 
 have been appointed within ten years ; selecting that 
 period not with any reference to the result, but be- 
 cause I thought it long enough, and was persuaded 
 that nobody will hold us responsible for the sins of 
 our predecessors, generation before generation. There 
 is but one member of the Corporation, who has been 
 in it so long. I did not know to what religious sects 
 
43 
 
 one half of the persons, whose names I noted down 
 belonged, but sent to Cambridge to obtain informatioi 
 on this point, and will now state to you the result ol 
 my inquiry. Among these names are those of four 
 Professors, whose instructions are confined entirely to 
 graduates, and who receive nothing from the College 
 treasury, two in Law, and two in Divinity. The 
 reasons for not putting Trinitarians into the Theologi- 
 cal school, have been above considered, and besides 
 one of these two Professors was appointed by the 
 Founders of the Professorship themselves, who estab- 
 lished the office only on condition, that the present 
 incumbent should first hold it. The case is the same 
 with one of the Professors of Law ; he was appointed 
 by the Founder. The other was selected by the Cor- 
 poration, and my informant tells me now, though I did 
 not know it before, that he is a Unitarian. The only 
 'permanent officers having any connexion with the un- 
 dergraduates, or receiving any pay from the treasury, 
 who have been chosen within that period, are the Presi- 
 dent, whom I consider orthodox according to Hollis, 
 though I do not mean to call him a Trinitarian ; and 
 the following persons ; the Librarian, the Steward, 
 the Janitor, the Professors of Chemistry, German, and 
 Latin, three Tutors, the Instructers, in French, Ital- 
 ian, and Elocution, the Curator of the Botanical Gar- 
 den, and assistant Steward, in all fourteen. Of these, 
 I understand, that three are Catholics, that one is of 
 the Evangelical reformed Lutheran Creed, one a Cal- 
 vinist, one a Sandemanian, that one attends the 
 Episcopal church, and one belongs to a family of 
 
44 
 
 Quakers ; eight in the whole ; and I suppose these 
 sects to be all Trinitarian. The other six, I am 
 told, are Unitarians. Besides these, the two per- 
 sons employed by the Treasurer and Secretary of the 
 College to keep their books, receive compensation for 
 their services. One of them is a Unitarian, and the 
 other a Calvinist. The three or four Proctors usually 
 there, are chosen from year to year, from among those 
 graduates, who are residing in Cambridge, and pursu- 
 ing the studies of their respective professions. It is 
 said that one of those now there is a Calvinist. If 
 they are in general Unitarians, which I presume to be 
 the case, there is this plain reason for it. They are 
 selected from among the graduates of Harvard, be- 
 cause these are best qualified for the office, and if the 
 Calvinists of the day will not send their sons there, 
 how can w T e choose them ? Let Calvinistic young 
 men go to Cambridge to be educated, and distinguish 
 themselves by their talents, and diligence, and good 
 conduct, and they will be promoted to office accord- 
 ing to their merits. Or if they are not, let them com- 
 plain as loudly as they please. 
 
 With regard to the distribution of College honors 
 and benefices among the students, there is not the 
 slightest suspicion in this vicinity, among those who 
 know any thing about the College, that it is influ- 
 enced in any manner whatever by any party feeling, 
 religious or political.* 
 
 * The effect, which these benefices or allowances to poor students 
 produce on the number of undergraduates, has already been alluded to, 
 page 8, and is strikingly evinced in the history of the College. There 
 
45 
 
 But not a little noise has been made about the 
 Union of Church and State. The difficulty of an* 
 swering this charge arises from that of comprehending 
 its precise meaning. Does it mean that our Executive, 
 Legislative or Judicial Departments control the deci- 
 sions of any individual on religious subjects, or that 
 any religious sect or party, controls the decisions of 
 either of those departments on civil subjects? Can 
 any man in his senses assert this ? There was a time, 
 when Church and State were united in Massachusetts, 
 and it was the fault of the age, and not of the illustri- 
 ous men who lived in it. But that time has gone by, 
 and the Legislature will take good care that it shall 
 not return, at least in this generation. 
 
 The main business of the College in that day, was 
 to teach Theology, one particular modification of 
 Theology. In this enlightened age, a public educa- 
 tion embraces the whole circle of the sciences and the 
 liberal arts, and Theology forms only a very small 
 part of it. To let a jealousy, therefore, against the 
 manner, in which this one branch is taught, extend it- 
 self to all the others, and give rise to reproaches against 
 the whole Institution, is something less than candour 
 and even than justice. There is no fear that the 
 State will intermeddle with religious faith ; and I 
 
 were more students there in the ten years following 1813, than usual, 
 and as the same objections were urged against the College then as now, 
 the only reason that can be given for it, is that during that period, the 
 State granted to the College twenty-five hundred dollars a year for 
 the use of poor and meritorious students. When that grant ceased, 
 the number of students became somewhat less, but there has not been 
 at any time any gradual and continued declension in the number of the 
 undergraduates, as the enemies of the College so frequently assert. 
 
46 
 
 believe that the great majority of Christians among 
 us, of every persuasion, and indeed, of every profession 
 and pursuit, are fully satisfied, that the days of Eccle- 
 siastical domination, whether over civil government or 
 private conscience, are ended, and that all religious 
 Instructers, who would maintain their proper dignity 
 or influence, must be content to teach and cease to 
 dictate. 
 
 But then it is objected, that the Executive and one 
 Branch of the Legislature, form part of a Board of 
 Overseers, for confirming or annulling the election of 
 Officers of the College, and other proceedings of the 
 Corporation. Now, one would think this must be a 
 security against sectarianism, instead of an encourage- 
 ment of it ; unless these departments and the people, 
 who choose them, are themselves sectarians. And is 
 not something of the same kind done in relation to 
 Amherst ? Are not some of the Trustees of that In- 
 stitution appointed by the two Branches of the Legisla- 
 ture ; and this without objection ? 
 
 These appeals to the people, however, against the 
 influence of public officers, annually elected by the 
 people themselves, are not likely to produce much 
 effect ; and it gives us some confidence in the good- 
 ness of our cause to find, that many of those, who are 
 most zealous in accusing the College of Sectarianism, 
 show what spirit they are of, by bringing the same 
 charge against the Legislature and the Judiciary of 
 
 Coo J 
 
 the Commonwealth. 
 
 But the complaint urged against Harvard with the 
 greatest zeal, and no doubt with the greatest sincerity, 
 
47 
 
 is that it is not orthodox ; and this is probably the real 
 difficulty. The College is condemned, not because it 
 is in the hands of a Sect, but because it is not in the 
 hands of the right Sect. While it was Orthodox, in 
 the sense of those, who thus complain, all was just as 
 it should be, and it was the duty and the privilege of the 
 State to protect, and even to support it. But now, when 
 it is supposed to be under the influence of a different 
 Sect, now it is to be cut off and abandoned. Is not 
 this calling on the State to treat different Sects in 
 different manners, and introducing into religious sub- 
 jects that very Civil Power, whose interference in them 
 is professedly deprecated ? If it must be under the 
 control of some Sect, as they allege it must, (though 
 I know not why) it ought to be a matter of perfect 
 indifference to the State, as a Civil Power, which 
 Sect that is, and each Sect, as it happens to be in 
 possession of it, ought to be equally protected. 
 
 The State, however, ought not to give funds, it is 
 said, for the advancement of any one Religious party. 
 To this, I heartily agree, and I presume that whatever 
 the State shall give to the College, will be given in 
 such a manner, that it cannot be applied to the Theo- 
 logical Department. But we are told, that even those 
 funds, which have heretofore been given for the benefit 
 of the undergraduates alone, will be applied, or may 
 be applied, to the use of the graduates in this De- 
 partment. No doubt, Sir, these, or any other funds 
 may be misapplied, and used for purposes, to which 
 they cannot rightfully be appropriated. But the pos- 
 sibility of abuses can never be prevented. That they 
 
48 
 
 will be thus misapplied, is a strong assertion. If there 
 is any reason for such an apprehension, it ought to 
 excite the strictest vigilance. When they are so 
 misapplied, or when there is any good ground for 
 suspecting it, let the abuse be ascertained, corrected, 
 and, if need be, punished by some competent legal 
 tribunal. Let the Supreme Judicial Court take up 
 the matter and decide it, as they decide other things, 
 upon distinct charge, proof and conviction, but do not 
 let us have sentence and execution without trial, hear- 
 ing and judgment, according to law. 
 
 And now, Sir, having taken some notice of all the 
 charges, which I have heard of against the College, 
 without knowing the sources of many of them, I 
 submit the charges and the answers to your candid 
 judgment. Let those, who think of crushing that 
 Institution, consider what it is. It is not the Officers, 
 high or low ; these are but its servants. The Young 
 Men are the Institution. Let its enemies go and look 
 at them, and see if they have the heart to crush them. 
 And if they have the heart, let them see if they have 
 the power. No, Sir, they have it, not. These are the 
 ornaments of Harvard, her jewels and her pride. 
 They are her support, also ; and they can support her, 
 and will support her, and the People of Massachu- 
 setts will support them, and their cause therefore will 
 assuredly triumph. 
 
 I have the honor to be, Sir, with the highest respect, 
 
 your most obedient servant, 
 
 F. C. GRAY. 
 
 Boston, April 16, 1831. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 029 892 559 A