money, and yet defeat his liberal designs; and that they actually did "defeat the provision of his statutes, which rendered a Baptist eligible to his professorship, and substituted, in place of a belief in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, a declaration of faith in all the high points of New England Calvinism."* p. 291. A simple narrative of the facts in the case will show how this matter is ;—after which, we may inquire as to the probable design of President Quincy, in laboring to discolor and distort these facts.

In the year 1720, Mr. Hollis learned, incidentally, from Dr. Colman, that there was no professor of divinity in Harvard College; at which he expressed some surprise, and prayed to be informed immediately "what would be a meet stipend or salary for one." Without waiting for an answer to this inquiry, he, early in the spring of 1721, prepared and sent over a paper, giving directions how the money that had been paid by him to Harvard College, or that might be paid in his lifetime, or by his executor, should be invested, and how "the proceeds thereof should be expended." A part of these proceeds was to be given for the support of a professor of divinity; a part for the assistance of poor and pious young men ; and a small sum was to be given annually to the college treasurer, "for his pains in receiving and paying over my bounty."

President Quincy represents this paper as the proper foundation of the professorship of divinity, and as embodying all the rules and orders which Hollis contemplated with respect to it. But it seems that he did not so regard it; for in letters accompanying the paper itself, he requests" further advice and information in that affair," viz. "the setting up a professorship of divinity at the college." In compliance with this request, "a draft" or "scheme of a professorship" was prepared and transmitted to Mr. Hollis. In general, this "New England scheme" met with his cordial approbation; though he thought that it needed some amendments. Accordingly, he delivered it over to several worthy ministers in and around London, desiring them to make such alterations and suggestions as to them appeared needful, intending afterwards to send it back to New England" for more mature consideration" there. The" scheme," or "orders," as amended in London, were at length returned to

*The "stricter Calvinists" are represented (as usual) by President Quincy, as the authors of all this trickery and mischief. p. 245.

See

New England; were accepted by the corporation of the college; and (with some slight modifications) by the overseers. They thus were made satisfactory to all parties, and were finally sanctioned by Mr. Hollis, in January, 1723. Subsequent to this, Mr. Hollis claimed and received a written obligation from the corporation, binding them and their successors faithfully to fulfil the orders, as they had been written. In a letter to Dr. Colman at this time, Mr. Hollis says: "Since my orders are now signed and sealed with you, keep but honestly to them, and I shall be pleased; not having any design at present to alter them, unless I see some very great reason for it."

President Quincy will have it, after all, that Hollis was not pleased with his orders; they were not what he originally intended; they were rather forced upon him by his too officious New England friends, than cordially adopted, as a matter of his own choice. He was specially displeased with the eleventh and last article, which enjoins that the professor be "a man of solid learning in divinity, of sound and orthodox principles." p. 248.

But how does President Quincy know what he has so confidently stated in relation to these matters? If he knows it at all, his knowledge must have been received by supernatural revelation; for certainly the documents contain no such intimations. The indications to be gathered from them are all in the opposite direction. The "New England scheme" or " draft" was transmitted to Hollis, in answer to his own request. Nor did he ever make any objection or complaint, that his friends had transcended his request, and sent over to him more than he desired. He thought the "scheme" needed some amendment, and he committed it to the hands of certain ministers for this purpose; but how does President Quincy know-what he expressly states -that it was the eleventh article, which Hollis thought "re

quired amendment or modification?" Does he anywhere say

so? Do the ministers to whom he referred it, say so? So far from this, they returned the eleventh article unaltered; and Hollis returned it unaltered to New England; thus unequivocally intimating that, in the judgment of all concerned on the other side of the water, this article required no modification. And when it was slightly amended, afterwards, in the board of overseers, so as to be of a more imperative character, still, Hollis made no objection to it, but sanctioned it as one of the orders of his professorship, to the end of time.

But it is said that, although Hollis consented to receive the

eleventh article, he virtually and intentionally nullified it, by immediately subjoining, as a part of his statutes, "that the only declaration required of his professor should be, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only perfect rule of faith and manners." pp. 249, 256, 263. But how, I ask again, does President Quincy know what the intentions of Mr. Hollis were, in causing his professor to make the above declaration? He talks and reasons about them with as much confidence and familiarity, as though he had been present at the time, with an omniscient eye, to look directly into the good man's heart. Mr. Hollis never intimated that he had any design or thought of nullifying or modifying, by the above declaration, the eleventh article of his orders; nor is there any thing in the declaration itself, which renders such a design probable. Cannot a person be" sound and orthodox," and yet receive "the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as the only perfect rule of faith and manners?" Or I might more properly ask, Can a person be" sound and orthodox," in the common acceptation of these terms, and not receive the Scriptures in this way ?

But President Quincy is not correct in representing the declaration above quoted as constituting "a substantive part" of the "rules and orders" of Hollis. The "rules and orders" are a paper by themselves, consisting of eleven articles, signed and sealed by the hand of the founder. The declaration referred to is contained in another paper, entitled "a plan or form for the professor of divinity to agree to, at his inauguration.”

Still farther from accuracy is President Quincy, in representing (as he does repeatedly) that a profession of belief in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only declaration to be required of the professor. So far from being the only declaration, it is but one among many others. At his inauguration, the professor must first "repeat his oaths to the civil government;" then, he must declare his belief in the Scriptures, as before stated; next, he "promises to open and explain the Scriptures to his pupils with integrity and faithfulness, according to the best light that God shall give him." He also 66 promises to promote true piety and godliness by his example and instruction"; to "consult the good of the college' and the peace of the churches, on all occasions ;" and "religiously to observe the statutes of his founder." p. 538. These several declarations and engagements are all contained—not in the "rules and orders" of Hollis-but in his " plan or form

SECOND SERIES, VOL. VII. NO. II.

4

for the professor of divinity to agree to, at his inauguration." Yet our author asserts repeatedly, "that the only declaration required of the professor should be, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only perfect rule of faith and manners." pp. 256, 263.

But

President Quincy supposes that the design of Hollis, in requiring the above declaration, was, that a Baptist might not be excluded from the professor's chair, under the eleventh article of his orders, on the ground that he was not orthodox. Hollis had effectually provided against an interpretation like this, in the first article of his orders, which makes the Baptist equally eligible to the office, as the Congregationalist, or the Presbyterian. The professor must "be a Master of Arts, and in communion with some Christian church of one of the three denominations, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, or Baptist." How would it be possible for men, who had proposed this article to Hollis, and adopted it, and bound themselves and their successors to abide by it, afterwards to exclude a man from the office, on the simple ground that he was a Baptist, and that a Baptist was not "sound and orthodox ?" At any rate, if this first article would not have prevented the corporation from excluding a Baptist, the declaration in the form of inauguration would have presented no kind of obstacle to such a procedure.

President Quincy thinks that, in examining Mr. Wigglesworth, the first Hollis professor of divinity, on the points of Calvinism, and more especially in regard to his belief of infant baptism, the corporation of the college showed an utter disregard of the wishes of Hollis, and even of his written orders. He is indignant that Mr. Wigglesworth should have been examined at all; and particularly that he should have been examined on such points as those referred to above, p. 255. But what indignity was it, either to the founder of the professorship, or to the candidate for office, that he was required to be examined? According to Mr. Peirce, up to this time and for years afterwards, all the college officers, " even the tutors, were examined as to their religious principles;"* and it would have been strange if the professor of divinity had been excused. And the orders of Hollis, so far from being violated by a formal examination, could not have been intelligently and faithfully fulfilled without it. The professor must be " a man of

*Hist. of Harvard University, p. 788.

solid learning in divinity, and of sound and orthodox principles." But how should an individual be known to be such a man, until he had first been tested and proved? Whatever meaning may have been attached to the term orthodoxy, how should the electors satisfy themselves that the candidate for office possessed this indispensable qualification, until he had submitted to be examined?

The points of Calvinism, on which Mr. Wigglesworth was examined, show conclusively what was meant by the term orthodox, in the days of Hollis. No man then could be soundly orthodox who was not soundly Calvinistic. That a Calvinistic Baptist was held to be orthodox is moreover proved, from a comparison of the first of the orders of Hollis with the eleventh. The professor, according to the first order, might be a Baptist. But according to the eleventh, he must be orthodox. Hence, in the judgment of all concerned in the framing or adopting of these orders, the profession of Baptist principles was consistent with orthodoxy. And hence, the examination of Mr. Wigglesworth in regard to his belief of infant baptism could have had no reference to the question of his orthodoxy, or to his qualifications for office according to the rules of Hollis, but must have been for the private satisfaction of some or all of the electors. There was nothing contradictory to the rules of Hollis, in this part of the examination; since, whether they found the candidate a believer in infant baptism or not, still they had a right, by the rules, to elect him. And as they had perfect liberty to go into such an examination, doubtless some of the electors felt that they should be better satisfied, after an examination had taken place.

President Quincy presumes that Hollis never knew of this examination, from the fact that he made no complaint in regard to it. p. 256. But I see not why he should have complained, if he had known it. He knew almost every thing else that took place, with reference to the college, about this time, and I see no reason to doubt that he was made early and fully acquainted with this. He certainly would approve of the examination, on all points, unless it were that of infant baptism. He expected the corporation to examine his professor, and satisfy themselves that he was "sound and orthodox." He would have blamed them, and with good reason, had they consented to act in the dark, in respect to a matter of so much importance. And with regard to the examination on infant baptism, as it would be a gratification to some of the electors, and as there was