tices, among other excellent qualities, his ability" to conceal his religious impressions." Another speaks of his habit, while a settled minister, of "bringing into the pulpit a number of old sermons, and constructing from their pages a new sermon as he went along, turning the leaves backwards and forwards, and connecting them together by the thread of his extemporaneous discourse."

We do not believe that he ever intended to squander a farthing of the college funds; or that he expended a cent for his own personal benefit, which it was not his purpose to replace. But of all men he was least qualified to be trusted extensively, almost irresponsibly (as he was) with the disposition of college. property. In the language of his friend, the late Hon. John Lowel: "He had nothing of that worldly wisdom, so necessary to pecuniary thrift. His own money had been poured out like water, when any claims had been made on his benevolence or sympathy." By his profuse expenditure of the moneys of college, upon buildings and ornaments, officers and students, he made himself exceedingly popular, at the same time that he brought the institution into circumstances of extreme embarrassment. And had not his course been arrested by the vigilance, firmness, and perseverance of a Bowditch, it is not unlikely that utter bankruptcy must, in a little time, have ensued.

THE CLAIMS OF THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS ON HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

Harvard University has not unfrequently been spoken of as an institution of the state; as belonging to the state-the whole state; and as bound to dispense its favors and privileges, with an impartial hand, to all. Still, it is probable that but few of the inhabitants of Massachusetts are aware to what an extent, and with what an emphasis, this is true. The public are under great obligations to President Quincy for furnishing the materials on which to form a judgment respecting this matter.

of the Autobiography of Dr. Hopkins, in Vol. III. p. 153. Speaking of Dr. Hopkins' account of his own religious experience, the writer says: "A reader unaccustomed to the kind of exercises here detailed might imagine that he had been perusing the journal of a valetudinarian, or listening to the reveries of a love-sick maid!"

Harvard University, in the first place, was founded by the state. President Quincy denies this, regarding Mr. Harvard, and not the state, as its proper founder. Vol. I. p. 39. But it should be recollected, that the institntion was founded, by a legislative act, and four hundred pounds were raised to make provision for it, nearly two years before Mr. Harvard's death. He bequeathed his property, not for the purpose of founding a college, but of helping to endow one, which had already a legal, corporate existence.*

But, secondly, Harvard University belongs to the state, because of the long continued and munificent patronage which the state has bestowed upon it. For one hundred and fifty years after the commencement of the college, its president was constantly supported by the state. By vote of the legislature, his salary was raised as regularly, from year to year, as was that of the governor, or any other of the state officers. And for many of these years, the salaries of the professors, or a considerable part of them, were raised in the same way. For the support of college affairs, between the years 1636 and 1686, there was actually paid out of the treasury of the state, not less than thirty-eight thousand pounds.

In addition to this, large sums were expended from time to time, and at various times, for the erection of buildings. The original grant of four hundred pounds was intended, as the phraseology of the vote implies, to be expended in the erection of a college building. In 1720, Massachusetts Hall was completed, at an expense to the state of three thousand five hundred pounds. In 1725, one thousand pounds were granted, to aid in providing a house for President Wadsworth. In 1763, Hollis Hall was erected, and cost the state four thousand eight hundred pounds. The very next year, Harvard Hall, having been destroyed by fire, was rebuilt by the state, at an expense of twentythree thousand dollars. At the same time, one hundred pounds were granted, for the purpose of supplying the college with at water engine. In 1804, Stoughton Hall was erected, and in 1813, Holworthy Hall, both of which cost the state 47,400 dol

* "The first gift of the revenues," says Blackstone, "is the foundation; and he who gives them is in law the founder." 1 Com. 480. 10 Co. 33. The state then, or the colony, to which the state has succeeded, was properly the founder of Harvard College.

lars. It is true, this sum was raised by lotteries; but the lotteries were authorized by the state, and the money came as really from the people, as though it had been raised by direct taxation. In 1815, University Hall was finished, at the enormous expense to the state of 65,000 dollars. It would appear from this estimate, that the state has expended in the erection of buildings, for the benefit of Harvard College, not less than 168,000 dollars.

One of the earliest grants of the state to the college, was the income of the ferry across Charles river; and this has been continued, in one form or another, almost to the present time. From this source, the college has received from the state not far from 112,000 dollars. In addition to all this, there was the bank tax of 1814, amounting to 100,000 dollars. Allowing 65,000 dollars of this sum to have been expended on University Hall, there would remain 35,000 for the benefit of the college, in other ways. There were also several smaller grants, noticed by President Quincy, which have not been taken into the above account; besides the several grants of land, which were made from time to time through almost the entire period of the college history, on which no definite estimate is made.

Taking the whole together, it will appear that the state of Massachusetts has actually given to Harvard College, at different times and in various ways, not less than half a million of dollars. In this view, surely, the state may well claim to have some special interest in this venerable institution. It may reasonably claim, that the privileges of the institution should be imparted, and its favors bestowed, with a view to the benefit of the whole people.

But there are other reasons, besides those which have been mentioned, why Harvard University should be regarded as the property of the state. Its charter is incorporated into the very constitution of the state, one whole chapter of which is devoted to this subject. It has been the object of continued legislative care, and of frequent legislative enactment, during the whole period of its history. And not only so, the governor and most of the high officers of state are, ex-officiis, members of the board of overseers, and have a general superintendence of its concerns.

When, however, we speak of Harvard University as an institution of the state, and of the rights of the state in regard to it, we refer, not so much to rights which may be legally enforced, astothose which every one can feel for himself, and which those

who understand the subject must feel. If this institution was founded and originally endowed by the state; if it has received the patronage of the state to the amount of at least half a million of dollars; if it is connected with the state, in the manner and ways already pointed out; then, obviously, it is an institution. of common state interest; and for any religious denomination to attempt to control it, and convert it to sectarian purposes, is unjust and wrong. Whether the excluded sects may, or may not, be able to obtain redress by force of law, the injury is one which they can feel, and respecting which they may take all proper measures to make their thoughts and feelings known.

As the first settlers of Massachusetts were orthodox Congregationalists, it was natural and it was right, that the college which they instituted for their common benefit should then receive a theological character conformed to their own. And as the college was originally undertaken by this denomination of Christians, it was natural that it should continue, for a course of years, under the same general influence. And so long as the great body of our citizens were essentially of one mind on religious subjects, there was no impropriety or injustice in this course of things. But for these many years past, the religious state of Massachusetts, and of New England generally, has been different. Owing to the increase of our population, and to the unshackled freedom of inquiry and opinion which is enjoyed, there has come to be, as might have been expected, a variety of religious sects. No small portion of the citizens are not now Congregationalists, even in name; and among those who bear this name, there is a marked and radical division, in point of religious sentiment and practice. A portion of those styling themselves Congregationalists-in the exercise of that freedom for which they are responsible only to God-have renounced the leading principles of the religion of their fathers, and adopted an opposite system of faith; so that the two classes of Congregationalists are now more widely separated from each other, than they are from several of the other sects. Under these circumstances, it would no longer be right for the university. of the state, in which all the people are alike interested, to remain in exclusive possession of the orthodox Congregationalists-the denomination which originated it, and controlled it, for a long course of years. Much less can it be right, that it should be in exclusive possession, or nearly so, of the Unitarians; a sect of recent origin, comprising but a fraction of the

whole population, and retaining little or nothing of the ancient Congregational system, except the name.

CONNECTION OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY WITH THE UNITARIAN THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL.

Several things have contributed to make the impression, that Harvard University-the venerable college of Massachusetts, in which all her citizens have an equal and common interest— has been, for many years, almost entirely under the influence and control of the Unitarians. Among the things here referred to are (as before stated) the known Unitarian character of the late president and Hollis professor of divinity; the character of their ministrations in the chapel and elsewhere, which often were distinctively Unitarian; the decidedly Unitarian character of the other principal professors and teachers; the manner in which honorary degrees have been, in most instances, distributed, and in which vacancies in the corporation, the board of overseers, and in the several departments of instruction, have been filled; the Unitarian character of most of the students who resort to the university, and of a still greater proportion of those who leave it; and the concessions and boasts of Unitarians themselves. "This ancient university," it has been said, "is the pure, uncorrupted fountain-head of Unitarianism." "The college," says the Christian Examiner, "without this new department," (the theological,) " WAS UNITARIAN." Again: "We suspect the true ground of hostility is not to the place, but the doctrine; not that young men should not learn theology at Harvard College, but that such theology as they do learn there should be learned nowhere."* Now what is this but an acknowledgment, the more satisfactory for being undesigned, that Harvard College is in the hands, and under the control and influence of the Unitarian denomination?

There is another fact which, more than any that has been mentioned, shows the sectarian character of Harvard University-we mean its connection with the Unitarian Theological School. The history of this school is, in brief, as follows. In 1815, the late president of Harvard College, "in behalf of the corporation, and with the assent of the board of overseers, addressed a circular letter to a large number of the sons and friends of the college, asking their assistance in providing additional

*Vol. X. pp. 159, 142.