« 이전계속 »
to give up its connection with the university. But let the negotiators remember that the gifts from the State, which the university has received as the price of its consent to that connection, or by virtue <«f its relation to the State, are in no event to be refunded.
The assanit, however, both by the two writers in the Nation,' and by Mr. Phelps in his speech, is mainly directed against the clerical part of the corporation. The "ministers" are the sort of men who, beca ise they are ministers, are incompetent to the trust which they have received from their predecessors. Let me ask what it is which these assailants propose to do? What they would d<> if they could is evident enough. They do not believe in men who are by profession religious men, students and teachers of the Christianity contained in the Bible; for men <>f that profession are as a class second-rate men. The problem which they have taken in hand is to get these men out of the corporation of Yale College, and my question is, "How do they propose to do it?" Do they expect to persuade the present corporation to abdicate their trust (if the legislature will consent) and to give over the entire university with all the interests involved, to the control of another Board differently constituted? Doubtless it wunld be easy to convince each of the ten, apart, that he as an individual is at the best only a second-rate man in comparison with "men who sit on the Supreme bench, or who control the cabinet of the executive," or with "successful men" in the city o( New York. Doubtless any one of them might be persuaded to vacate his seat in the expectation of its being filled by a wiser and abler man. But to convince them all, or even a majority of them, that they are unfit to hold the great and precious trust simply because they are ministers,—will not be easy. Knowing something about ministers, and especially Connecticut ministers, I can say with great confidence that no insults on their persons or their profession will drive them from the trust transmitted to them by the Founders, and guaranteed by the original compact between the Founders and the commonwealth. Purely they who hope to succeed in such an enterprise by such means, cannot be reckoned higher than "second-rate men."
But let all this be forgotten, and let us suppose that the enterprise has been undertaken with a more sagacious view of the connection between means and ends. Let us suppose a courteous memorial addressed to the President and Fellows, subscribed by the names of the memorialists, and asking that the government of this venerable institution, instead of remaining where the Founders placed it, be transferred to the graduates dispersed over the world. The memorialists admit that, under the existing constitution, the college has prospered hitherto, and has had a marvellous growth; but they intimate that in some particulars, not easily defined, it is behind the times, and they are sure that the graduates, if it can be put under their control, will come up to its help with great enthusiasm, and will set it forward at a rapid rate. I can tell beforehand what the result would be of such a memorial. The President and Fellows would reply, Yale College was designed to be a religious and Christian institution; and we cannot surrender the only security for its religious character. You offer us only vague promises which may mean much in your intention and yet never be fulfilled, but if you would add to the endowments a solid million of money to-day on the condition of our putting the whole trust out of our hands into yours, our answer would be the same: Nonposmimus.
Whether right or wrong, the firm belief of the President and at least the ten clerical Fellows always will be that the confidence of the churches, and the munificence of men who hold that a college ought to be a religious institution, are worth more than any patronage that is likely to come on any terms, from those graduates, be they ever so rich and ever so lavish, who have an outspoken contempt for Christian ministers. I know not how many they may be for whom Mr. Phelps seems to speak, and who are represented by the two writers in the Nation; but if I were in confidential relations with them, I would frankly advise them to discharge their minds immediately of all expectation that the revolution which they are planning will be consented to by the corporation as it is. If they are to accomplish what they have undertaken, they must try some other method.
What then? Will they address themselves to the legislature of Connecticut? But Yale College is not a State univer sity, nor is it under the control of the State in the same sense in which Harvard College is under the control of Massachusetts. Its charter cannot be violated by a legislative act so long as there is a Supreme Court of the United States. If Senator Sumner would frame a bill for an act of Congress to guarantee a republican form of government to the State of Connecticut, and would put into the bill a new constitution for Yale Col" lege,—and if the two houses could be persuaded to pass the bill, and the President to sign it,—and then if the Supreme Court would recognize the act as not contrary to the supreme law of the land,—the thing would be done. Can it be clone in any other way?
I have intended, throughout this communication, to speak of Mr. Phelps much more respectfully than he spoke of me, for I learned long ago to "reverence the young," and he is not yet old enough to be undeserving of respect. Let me then, in all seriousness and good feeling, make one suggestion tending toward a solution of the difficult problem which "Young Yale," so called, seems unable to solve. The late George Peabody gave one hundred and fifty thousand dollars for a Museum of Natural History in connection with Yale College. Wisely, as I think, and much to the relief of the President and Fellows, he placed that princely gift in the hands of his own trustees to be managed and expended by them for the use and benefit of the university in conformity with directions recorded in his instrument of donation. In like manner, a wealthy gentleman in the city of New York left, in his last will, a legacy of fifty thousand dollars to remain in the hands of his son, and the income of it to be expended by him, at his discretion, for the benefit of Yale College. The son is discharging that trust not only with all fidelity, but also, so far as Tknow, with sound discretion. These two facts may illustrate the hint I will venture to offer. If Young Yale really wants to be represented in the management of the funds, and to have by its elected trustees or visitors a direct influence over the policy of the institution, there is a way in which that desire can be attained. Suppose an University Fund of half a million for objects connected with the whole institution, and a board of trustees or visitors elected by the Alumni to superintend the application of it,—would that answer the purpose % I will also suggest that a hundred thousand dollars for the Law Department is a great desideratum, and that whoever will give the money may make his own conditions as to the use of it, and like Mr. Peabody may establish his own arrangements by compact with the corporation.
I might have subscribed this letter (which was commenced as a letter to the Editor of the Nation,) Another Alumnus; for I also am a graduate of Yale College, and so is every one of my nine associates; and we do not admit that the Socii lose any of the dignities or privileges belonging to the Alumni. But as my letter has become too long for insertion in a weekly journal, and must reach the public on the pages of the graver and more capacious Neio Englander, I accept the less dignified name proposed by Mr. Phelps, and being "exhausted by keeping a few sheep in the wilderness" subscribe myself, most humbly,
of Squashville. Oct. 1, 1870.
Article VIII.—NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.
THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOU8.
Julius Miller's Doctrinal Essays.*—The most eminent of the living German theologians, in the department of philosophical and systematic Divinity, is the Author of the great work on the Christian Doctrine of Sin, Dr. Julius Milller, of Halle. His classical culture—he is a brother of the late Ottfried Milller,—his philosophical acumen and learning, his thorough acquaintance with all branches of theological science, together with the fine mingling of conservatism, or rather of deep and earnest convictions, with liberal and catholic feeling and with a sincere, impressive spirit of piety, mark him out as a great teacher. His high position is recognized in Germany by scholars of all varieties of opinion. Rothe, while he lived, had an almost equal reputation; and Nitzsch was regarded as the leader among younger men who, like him, were eminent in the branch of doctrinal theology. The collection of dissertations which Mttller has just given to the public are elaborate and very able discussions of several themes: the Relations of Faith to Knowledge; The Right of private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture ; the question whether the Son of God would have become incarnate, if sin had not entered the world; the relation between the operation of the Holy Spirit and the efficacy of the divine word; the Invisible Church; a Comparison of the Doctrines of Luther and Calvin on the Lord's Supper; the Divine Institution of the office of the Ministry. Each of these essays contains, in a condensed and regular form, materials sufficient to form a treatise on the subject to which it relates. It is pleasant to know that the venerable Author, who has suffered from ill health for many years, has found strength to revise and collect these very valuable contributions to theological science.
Rothe's Doctrinal System.|—The posthumous publication of
"Dogmatiache AbhaniUungen von Julius Miiller, Dr. Bremen: C. Ed Miiller. 1870.
\ Dogmatik von Dr. R. Rothk. Aus dessen handschriftlichem Nachlasae herauegegeben, von Dr. D. Sobxneel. (1. u. 2 Abth.) 1870. pp. 815, 856.