With respect to the other expenses of education, including those for instruction and books, 'they are less,' it is urged by Mr Gray, 'at Cambridge, than they can be in any other part of New England.' Books are furnished by the Institution at the lowest possible rates at which they can be obtained in this country or in Europe. If the student at Cambridge pays more for them than the students at some other colleges, it is because he buys more. But what he does buy, he buys cheaper. So of instruction. The students at Cambridge may pay more for it than the students elsewhere, but the latter' 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.' These, no doubt, may be better suited elsewhere than at Cambridge.

The necessary expenses of a student at Harvard, 'including every thing but clothing,' are stated by Mr Gray as not exceeding two hundred and ten dollars a year.

After several pages of interesting remarks on the funds of the college, and the manner of employing them, on appropriations for the Library, and the reasons for such appropriations, on the real uses of a Library, and the value of classical learning, Mr Gray proceeds to treat of the charges against the college relating especially to theological subjects, and he gives them, we think, as ample a refutation as could be wished. First, with regard to the Hollis Professor of Divinity, it is urged, that the Statutes of the Professorship require him to be orthodox,' and by this it is contended that the founder of the Professorship

meant that he should be a Trinitarian. As evidence of this, it is argued that Hollis was himself a Trinitarian ; but he was also a Baptist, yet he does not require his Professor to be such, and how are we authorized to infer that he deemed it indispensable that he should be a Trinitarian? In the Plan or Form' to which the Professor is to express his assent at his inauguration, he is required to promise that he will explain and open the scriptures to his pupils with integrity and faithfulness, according to the best light that God shall give him,' that is, he is left perfectly free in his inquiries and expositions. May we not hence infer that it is possible that Mr Hollis might have thought Orthodoxy 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 color that light might put on them? If so, all his directions appear plain, intelligible and consistent;' otherwise there is an apparent contradiction, since his Professor is required to be a Trinitarian, yet it is made obligatory on him to explain the scriptures according to his best information and judgment, though they should lead him to a rejection of the Trinity.

6

6

That the Orthodoxy of Hollis was such as just de-, scribed, and not of an exclusive character, Mr Gray thinks we have a right to infer from the part which he and his friends took in the famous Salter's Hall' controversy, which occurred a little before the establishment of the Divinity Professorship at Cambridge. In that controversy they strenuously contended against the imposition of any test of doctrine except the Scriptures themselves; and in a letter of advice to some clergy

men in the west of England they refused to declare their belief of the Trinity, and for this their names were published on the 'BLACK LIST,' as it was called. With several of the persons whose names appeared in this list Hollis consulted in regard to the Rules and Orders,' of his Professorship. They were his confidential friends and advisers. Now is it possible,'

asks Mr Gray, to believe, that Hollis, and his friends who were in 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.'

Some very just and valuable observations follow on the subject of creeds, which we would gladly transfer to our pages, but we have not room.

'But there is a Theological School connected with the College, and this school is said to be sectarian.' Of the history of this school Mr Gray gives a very satisfactory sketch in a note appended to the second edition of his Letter. Students in Theology have resided at the University from the earliest times, and this appears to have been contemplated by the founders of the college, which was dedicated to Christ and the Church.' In 1815, it was thought by the Corporation of the University, that some further provision for Theological education was needed, and funds were raised, and a Society soon after formed for this purpose.

The Theological school was subsequently organized, subject to the control of a joint board, composed of the Corporation, and five Trustees, to be chosen by the 'Society for the Promotion of Theological Education in Harvard University.' In 1819, a 'Theological De

partment, or Faculty of Theology,' was regularly instituted. The school at this time was strictly part of the University. There were those, however, who thought an entire separation of it from the College desirable; others thought it neither desirable nor possible. It appears that in October, 1824, a committee of the Society above alluded to, in a Report, expressed doubts whether such a separation could be 'lawfully effected,' for the funds having been contributed for the promotion of Theological education in the University, and subjected to the control of the Corporation, and having been accepted by them, it might be considered a violation of a trust to introduce the contemplated change without the consent of all the original contributors, some of whom were dead. The committee further expressed the opinion that the separation if practicable, was, under all the circumstances of the case, unnecessary and inexpedient.' Some members of this committee, were gentlemen of high legal attainments, and the Report was accepted unanimously. The Society was then reorganized, and its Directors took the general oversight and superintendence' of the school, subject however, to the control of the Corporation from whom they derived their power, and thus the school continued to form a part of the University. A building was afterwards erected, partly from the proceeds of the funds formerly collected, and partly by a new subscription, for the use of the Students in the Theological School in Cambridge.' Neither the building nor the funds can be legally transferred to the use of any other Theological School, but must forever remain for the use and benefit of the

School in the University, and thus its separation becomes impracticable.

The Society, with the consent of the Corporation withdrew, last autumn, from all connexion with the School, and the Corporation proceeded in consequence to form new statutes, which were ratified by the Overseers in February, 1831.

The only effect of the statutes on the condition of this Department of the University was, to transfer the power of making regulations for instruction and discipline in it;-a power formerly exercised by the Directors under the control and responsibility of the Corporation, and which, on the retirement of the Directors must, without these statutes, have been exercised immediately by the Corporation itself;-to transfer this power to the Theological Faculty, and thus place them in the same state of practical independence in the ordinary management of the School, and of subjection to the authority of the College Government, whenever they shall see fit to exercise it, in which the Faculties of Law and Medicine are placed.'

Such,' says Mr Gray, 'is the connexion of this Seminary with the College government; and it is not easy to imagine any other state of things, in which so little authority should be exercised by the government over the School, unless all connexion between them be destroyed; which would occasion the forfeiture not only of the funds received but of our plighted faith also, and the violation of our solemn obligations to obey the directions of the living and to fulfil the will of the dead. Those, who recommend incurring the forfeiture of these funds, cannot certainly be aware, that it involves a gross dereliction of duty.' pp. 56, 57.

No more Theological instruction is given to the undergraduates, now than formerly. The public lectures of the Hollis Professor which, until within a few years, all the students were required to attend, being now delivered on Sunday, as a course of sermons, are only heard by those who choose to worship in the college chapel. The new Statutes make it the duty of the Theological Professors to offer daily prayers in the