tional Churches, without giving any appointing power to the existing ecclesiastical bodies. It proposes to lodge the power of appointing to the Board of Trust, which directs the affairs of the institution, in a Triennial Convention or Council, to be composed of all the Congregational ministers, and one delegate from each of the Congregational Churches of a contiguous group of States, for the benefit of which the seminary is especially intended. This is a novel idea, the working of which has not yet been tested by experiment. But it seems to us liable to great, perhaps fatal, objections.

If the Convention should, as it ought, confine itself strictly to the one object for which it exists, there would be danger that after the novelty of the thing was over, few churches would be represented, and few ministers would incur the expense necessary to attend it. The appointing power might thus fall into the hands of a handful of men living in the vicinity of the Institution, and a power of control designed to be denominational, would in practice be only local; and, therefore, secure very little either of the confidence or sympathy of the churches.

But we should suppose the danger much greater in another direction; that a great Convention-(and that would be a great Convention indeed, which should embrace one minister and one lay delegate from each of the Congregational churches in eight Northwestern States) we say that a great Convention gathered from all the churches of a vast region, would not, when assembled, confine itself to the simple business of appointing Trustees, for which alone it was called together, but would become a great Triennial deliberative Assembly, for discussing and resolving upon all the questions supposed to be of importance to the interests of religion and the peace and prosperity of the churches. Such a Triennial Assembly, entrusted with the high and permanent function of exercising control and supervision over a great Institution of learning, is a power hitherto unknown to the Congregational Polity, the influence of which is likely to be important, and, we fear, disastrous. It does not require prophetic power to foresee, that such an experiment is attended with much danger to the peace

of the Churches, and even to their independency, as well as as to the prosperity of the Institution.

Let us not flatter ourselves that the times of agitation and conflict are yet over, even in Congregational Churches. And in the midst of such conflicts as those which the New England Churches have experienced in the last forty years, the meeting of a great Convention, like that which assembled in Chicago in 1858, could not fail to produce a commotion, which would be disastrous to the harmony of the Churches and highly prejudicial to the interests of the Institutions, over which it should exercise a guardianship. Nothing is so distressing to children as the quarrels of their parents, and such distresses would in that case be sure to come upon the Seminary. It seems to us that such an arrangement is likely to produce all the bad consequences which we have hinted at, as likely to follow from placing Yale College under the control of the General Association of Connecticut, and even worse on account of the vastness and heterogeneous character of the Convention.

We should also fear that the appointing power would be exercised by an Assembly so vast, and hastily convened and transient in duration, with very little deliberation or wisdom. It should be borne in mind that the Convention assembled in Chicago in 1858, numbered some four hundred members; that a full representation of the constituency would at that time have brought together a Convention of not much short of five times that number, and that if the constituency maintains its present ratio of increase for a generation to come, it is not probable that there will then be a public building in Chicago, which can accommodate the sittings of the Convention. For such a body to become fully aware of the qualifications which are necessary in the Trustees of a great Seminary of learning, and fully informed of the fitness of the men they vote for, is quite impossible. We are not speak ing of the working of that system in times of harmony and repose, but in tines when the Churches are under the excitements of controversy and conflict. In such times we think the scenes

of the annual meetings of the Nassau street Tract Society might be reproduced in Chicago, with aggravations.

We do not believe, therefore, that any thoughtful man considers this novel idea as a solution of the difficulty: it will be well indeed for the Churches of the great Northwest, if it does not prove to be the very worst form of denominationalism, in its relation to Seminaries of learning. We do not predict; we cannot refrain from suggesting; time must determine.

In view of these and like considerations, we think it will be conceded, that there are great and perhaps fatal objections against subjecting Colleges to the direct organic control of the various denominations. But it may still be claimed that there are other ways in which we may have denominational Colleges, without encountering the difficulties which have been alluded to. Let us then examine the other methods which have been proposed and to some extent attempted in practice.

The College may be placed under the direction of a selfperpetuating Board of Trust, composed, however, of men who are attached to a single denomination, and regarded as under bonds to conduct the Institution in the interest of that denomination, and to perpetuate the Board of Trust in the same line of succession. We cheerfully admit that this form of denominationalism partially avoids some of the objections which we have thus far urged. A College so constituted will be exposed to much less danger from those internal commotions to which all ecclesiastical systems are more or less liable, and may for that reason be expected to enjoy a much calmer and more peaceful existence. But still, as it is regarded as the property of the denomination, it cannot altogether escape the storms. The organic powers of the denomination will claim to speak in the name of the denomination, and in its behalf to dictate measures to the guardians of the College, and will have it in their power not a little to disturb the tranquillity of the halls of learning, and weaken the hold of the Institution on public confidence. Neither the Faculty nor the Trustees of such an Institution, can be fully independent in

their offices; they can only enjoy peace by doing the behests of the sect with great promptness and submissiveness.

In so far as the denominational control of an Institution can be successfully exerted under this form, it has no less tendency to illiberality and narrowness, than the method of direct ecclesiastical control. It tends to confine all appointments within the limits of a single denomination, and forbids the Trustees. to place the fittest men in the chairs of instruction, unless they are right on all denominational issues. We do not assert that a Board of Trust, so pledged, would not sometimes make appointments outside the denomination. But such cases would be rare and exceptional, and not at all inconsistent with the general tendency of which we speak. And we affirm, without fear of successful contradiction, that men qualified in the high and proper sense of that word-qualified intellectually, morally, and religiously-to fill the various departments of instruction in our Colleges, are not so abundant, especially men whose services can be had at the present miserably low salaries of College Professors, that our Boards of Trust can afford to apply such tests to candidates otherwise eminently fitted for the places which are to be filled. And if they persist in applying them, they will not fail to belittle, and degrade their Colleges. In proof of the soundness of this view, we appeal to facts which are patent to every observing man.

There is yet a third form in which it is conceivable that we should have Denominational Colleges; and it is a form which is not without its advocates and its experiments. It is to unite two or more denominations in the support and control of the same College, but to divide it between them by a definite understanding that each denomination is to be entitled to a certain number of seats in the Board of Trust, and to certain chairs of instruction. This plan does seem to offer the advantage of uniting more than one denomination in the support of the same Institution. And yet it is for experience to determine how far it will accomplish even this. We should fear that it might result in depriving it of the hearty sympathy and support of either. But however that may be, it as truly imbues the Institution with the spirit of sect as the methods be6

VOL. XVIII.

fore considered. It elevates minor denominational peculiarities into tests of fitness for the highest and most dignified stations it tends to fill our most important chairs of instruction with men of inferior talents and attainments, because they are supposed to be right in the matter of denomination, and thereby to impair the efficiency of the Institution in the discharge of its appropriate function.

And by whom are the instructors of an Institution, under such auspices, to be appointed? By the respective denominations in partnership, acting through their organic bodies? Then we fall back upon all the consequences of a direct ecclesiastical control. And we should be apprehensive, too, that in such a case little regard would be had for those quali fications which make the true educator, and that the Faculty of such a College would be made up on both sides, or on all sides, of ardent sectarians, who could never harmonize with each other. Such an Institution would, we suspect, achieve very little for the cause of liberal learning.

But, on the contrary, are the instructors to be appointed by a Board of Trust, held under bonds to give a certain number of places to each of the denominations in partnership? What guaranty, then, has either denomination that such men will be appointed as will be acceptable to the denomination, and in the judgment of their brethren fitted to take care of its interests in the Institution? In such an order of things we should expect to hear the Trustees charged with appointing men as representatives of this or that denomination, who are not the genuine article, belonging to the denomination only in name and position, and not true to its principles and interests. Whether there are any facts now before the public to justify such an expectation, we leave to well informed readers to judge. In truth, we are inclined to regard this as the worst of the three forms of Denominationalism to which we have referred. Sure we are, that it is the most likely to produce alienations among brethren, and heart-burnings in the community, and to prove in practice utterly impracticable. We believe the obstacles supposed to lie in the way of the individual coöperation of Christians in all good works, though