« PoprzedniaDalej »
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, alınost 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, meinbers 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 Unitari. ans 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.
means for theological education in Harvard University.” In consequence of this letter, subscriptions to a considerable amount were obtained. The subscribers held a meeting, July, 1816, and formed themselves into a “Society for the promotion of Theological Education in Harvard University.” The trustees of this society, in conjunction with the corporation of the college, soon after laid the foundation of a theological school, and undertook the charge of it, by a joint superintendence. In 1819, a theological faculty was instituted, and a system of rules adopted for its regulation. Uneasiness, however, existed in the minds of many Unitarians, on account of the connection of the school with the university. One respectable committee, to whom the subject was referred, recommended that the school and the university be entirely separated; but their report was rejected. Another committee, instead of proposing to withdraw the school entirely from the university, recommended that the superintendence of it be committed to the directors of the society, subject only to the assent of the corporation. This report was accepted, and the society, by its directors, took charge of the school. It was under the supervision of these directors, that the building for the accommodation of theological students was erected. In the year 1830, the directors and the society by which they were constituted, resigned all their power and authority over the school into the hands of the corporation of the college; so that the society had no longer any connection with the school or its funds. The corporation, having accepted the trust committed to them, and taken the school into their own hands, prepared statutes and instituted a faculty for the regulation of it, all which was duly approved by the overseers. According to these statutes, the president of the university is to be the head of the theological school. The Hollis professor of divinity is to be the first professor in the school. The theological professors are to “perform divine service in the chapel of the university, on the Lord's day, throughout the year.” They are also to offer the “ daily prayers in the chapel of the university.” The appointment of the theological professors, and the concerns of the school generally, are placed entirely under the control of the corporation, so that the school is now an integral part of the university. The connection between it and the university is as intimate and complete as it can well be made.
Here, then, we have a finishing, conclusive argument in proof of the sectarian character of the university. Its whole theolog
SECOND SERIES, Vol. VII. NO. II.
ical department is entirely and avowedly Unitarian. We say avowedly Unitarian ;-for what is the language of the Christian Examiner in regard to it? “ We do not deny that the professors of the school are Unitarians; and we rejoice in the fact. We do not deny that the probability is, that the students will come from the school impressed with the truth of the Unitarian faith. God forbid that it should be otherwise.” Vol. X. p. 144. It is here distinctly acknowledged, that the theological professors connected with the university—by whom alone religious instruction is to be communicated, and daily religious services are to be performed—are all Unitarians, and are intended and expected to be Unitarians. Whether a state of things such as this does not give a character to the university, and render it thoroughly Unitarian and sectarian, the public must judge.
In palliation of the evil here complained of, it has sometimes been said, that the funds of the university have not been applied, and will not be, for the support of the theological school. But this is not true. In the various letters and papers relating to the commencement of the theological school, the purpose was distinctly avowed of “ applying the resources of the college to this object, so far as other indispensable claims admit.” It was also urged as an argument against separating the theological school from the university, that in that case, it must be deprived of the instructions of the college officers, and of the benefits of the college library, and the college funds. Indeed, almost all the instruction that has ever been given in this theological school has been given by university officers—men who were supported, either wholly or in part, from the funds of the
Citizens of Massachusetts, are you acquainted with these things ? And if so, what do you think of them? Is it right, that the venerable university, so munificently endowed by your liberality and that of your fathers, and once the glory of our land, should thus be monopolized by a particular class of religionists, and converted by them to their own party purposes ? Is it right that this noble institution should be surrendered “ to the exclusive use and benefit of Unitarians—a little sect which, thirty years ago, had not courage or honesty enough to admit that they had a being ?” Is it right that the funds of this state institution, and the services of its officers, should be employed to sustain and build up a Unitarian theological school ? Other sects endow and support their own theological schools; why