Imatges de pàgina

be found in the very Foundation of his professorship. It was no slight evidence of his moderation, in those days, that he left it open to three denominations; Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist; and what can be more decisive upon this subject, than the solemn form, which he prescribed to his Professor, 'to agree to at his inauguration. Surely, had he intended to provide, 'that his Professors at all future times should hold any one of the controverted doctrines, among Christians,—the Trinity, for example,—this was the place, in which to insist upon its recognition and acknowledgement. But this is the form : and who will deny, that any Professor, whether Calvinistic or Arminian, Trinitarian or Unitarian, who can sincerely adopt this form, complies with the will of the Founder?

• That he repeat his oaths to the civil government :

“That he declare it as his belief that the bible is the only, and most perfect rule of faith 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 good of the College, and the peace of the churches, on all occasions, and

“That he religiously observe the statutes of his Founder. Signed by me,

THOMAS Hollis.' Nor is this all. Not only has it been intimated that Hollis was Orthodox and exclusive, in the modern sense of the terms, but it has been said again and


again, that large funds designed by him for an Orthodox professorship in the College, are diverted to the support of a Unitarian Professor, and thence to the inculcation of a Unitarian faith. We do not like to be always replying to those, who will not read, or reading, will not believe, or understand. But it shall not be grievous to us to repeat once more, that the funds, appropriated by Mr Hollis to the support of his Professor, amount to just $2606 and 67 cents; that supposing them invested at six per cent, which cannot now always be done, they will yield per annum but about one hundred and fifty of the fifteen-hundred dollars, which is the Professor's regular salary. In other words, the Hollis fund yields but one tenth part of the Hollis Professor's support; while the remaining thirteen hundred and fifty are supplied from other sources.

In relation to the Statutes of the Theological School, recently confirmed by the Overseers, we cannot but be surprised, if any thing from certain quarters could surprise us, at the various speculations, censures, and dark surmises, which they have called forth, when we consider how little they differ from statutes and regulations before in operation. They do not establish a Theological school. They regulate one that has long existed. They do not connect this school with the University, for this school from its very foundation has been connected with it. The college itself was founded for Christ and the Church, and to supply the churches with a succession of learned and able ministers. Mr. Hollis, in the establishment of his professorship, contemplated an union of this sort, for in his private let

ters he expresses his wishes and expectations, that persons preparing for the ministry would continue in Cambridge after their collegiate course was completed, and enjoy the privileges, which the Library and the Professor of Divinity might afford.'

In accordance with this, the students of theology have always been placed, in a certain sense, under his watch and care; they have been recommended and encouraged to seek his counsel ; and in points of difficulty, arising in the course of their studies, to repair to him for light.

Previous to the foundation of the Society for the Promotion of Theological Education' in Cambridge, in 1816, considerable sums had been collected for the enlargement of the Theological School. These sums were obtained in the name of the Corporation of the College ; and gentlemen in Boston and in various parts of the country, were addressed by President Kirkland in behalf of the Corporation, designating them as committees within their parishes or towns for obtaining subscriptions, and soliciting their good offices in a matter, which was justly deemed interesting to the churches. The President of the College was, from the first, and ex officio, the head of the school; and there is no thing in the new statutes, modifying and extending its relation to the college, which in any degree changes the nature of that relation, or conveys to the President of the college any further power or iufluence, as head of the Theological school, than that with which he was invested by the adoption, in 1816, of the Constitution of the Society.

[ocr errors]

[To be Continued.]

[blocks in formation]




This passage of scripture has occasioned not a little uneasiness and pain to good, but weak or ill informed minds. When men's minds are at all disordered, they care it very apt to be haunted by the apprehension that they have committed the unpardonable sin. It is important, therefore, that the real meaning of the Evangelist in this place should be understood.

Our Saviour had just been casting out a devil, as the Evangelist expresses it ; that is, curing a maniac, much to the amazement of the spectators. The Pharisees, to prevent the favorable impression which this was likely to make on the multitude, affirmed that Jesus had wrought this miracle, not by the spirit or power of God, but by the help of the evil one. In the now to be explained, our Saviour refers, it would seem, to the sin which these Pharisees had committed

In the passage

in thus daring to traduce the spirit or power of God by representing it as being the agency of Beelzebub. His general object appears to have been to declare, that offences of the most heinous nature, and even reproach and injustice against the Son of God, would more readily find pardon, than a disposition to belie and treat contemptuously visible interpositions of the Deity. His words are so very remarkable, that we must quote them. “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.'

Clearly and justly to understand this passage it will be necessary, in the first place, to consider what is meant by blasphemy in this connexion ; in the second place, what is meant by blasphemy against the Holy Ghost ; and in the third place, what is meant by its not being forgiven either in this world, or in the world to come.

In the first place, let us inquire what is meant by the term blasphemy, as used in this passage. Blasphemy in its largest sense comprehends all kinds of evil speaking; but when we speak of the sin of blasphemy, we always take into view, I believe, the motive of the blasphemer. To blaspheme another, in the popular acceptation of the crime, does not consist merely in speaking evil of him, but in speaking evil of him with a malicious intent. Just as the crime of murder does not consist merely in killing another, but in killing him

« AnteriorContinua »