by personal character and qualifications, such as talent, learning, eloquence, apparent piety, and blameless life. But it is a historical fact, which will not be denied, that men possessing all these attributes have sometimes preached a gospel differing from that which Paul once preached to the Galatians, not in minor points alone, but in essential principles, and that so doing they fell within the sweep of this divine anathema, and thereby lost all claim to the obedience and the confidence of other Christians.

Another test proposed by some is immediate intercourse with God, and the reception of direct communications from him. But would the fact of such communications, even if admitted, place the person who enjoyed them in a better situation, with respect to this rule, than was held by an inspired apostle, or an angel from heaven? If these preached another gospel, they were to be treated as accursed. What, then, could a pretended, or even a real inspiration now avail to exempt any from subjection to the same inexorable law?

A third test, which has been contended for with greater zeal than either of the others, is that afforded by external connection with particular societies or churches claiming a direct and unbroken ministerial succession from the apostles. Let us grant the existence of such a succession, and the possibility of proving it, and thus allow the advocates of this test an advantage which by no means is their due. Even with this gratuitous concession it is evident, that all depends at last upon compliance with the test of doctrinal conformity laid down by Paul. The fact is not disputed on the part of any, that some men claiming, and believed by many to possess, the most complete external warrant for the exercise of ministerial functions, have taught false doctrines, and essentially departed from the faith, while still retaining their ecclesiastical connections unaltered. Now, these, according to Paul's rule, were not only cursed of God, but ought to be regarded by men as having no connection with the church, much less any power or authority within it. And this fatal vice in their official character and ministrations cannot possibly be cured by any outward advantage, real or supposed, in point of ordination or church-membership. If they preach another gospel, they are not of God; if not of God, they are not of the true church; if not of the true church, they cannot be true ministers-it matters not by whom they were ordained, or with whom they hold communion. It seems, then, that this test is either inclusive or exclusive of all others; that is to say, that others are of value only so far as they agree with this, and become worthless when they diverge from it.

The test of apostolical teaching thus established by Paul is

clearly recognised by John in his second epistle-"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."-(Ver. 7.) This was, of course," another gospel." The apostle therefore adds, "This is a deceiver and an antichrist; look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward."—(Ver. 7, 8.) In like manner, Paul seemed to fear that the fruit of his labours in Galatia might be lost. —(Gal. iv. 11.) But how does John lay down his rule of discrimination?" Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God; he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."(Ver. 9.) Here is no allusion to a want of outward calls, and ordinations, and successions, but the primary test, failing which all others must be insufficient, is made to consist in uniformity of doctrine. And that this was not meant to be without effect in practice, is sufficiently apparent from what follows:-"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine," whatever other claims to your obedience and confidence he may assert, "receive him not into your house, neither bid him welcome (xaipen Meyer), much less believe him and obey him as a spiritual guide; for he that biddeth him God-speed (or welcome), is partaker of his evil deeds."—(Ver. 10, 11.)

งา

From these two passages, it fully appears that THE PRIMARY

AND PARAMOUNT CRITERION OF AN APOSTOLIC MINISTRY IS CONFORMITY OF DOCTRINE TO THE APOSTOLIC STANDARD.

ART. VIII.-German University Education, or the Professors and Students of Germany. By W. C. PERRY. 2d Edition. London.

THE rapid multiplication of colleges and universities (so called) among us, is not more remarkable than the uniformity of their organization. The literary institutions of the new states are as accurately copied as their civil institutions from the models in the older colonies. We have no more reason to be sure that every new state will have its Governor, Senate, and House of Representatives, than that every new college will be furnished with the usual apparatus of a President, a Board of Trustees, a Faculty consisting of Professors and Tutors, and if possible a building far beyond the actual or probable necessities of the infant seminary. This last is one of the most curious features in the history of our literary institutions. In no other age or country has the idea of a public seminary

been so generally understood to involve that of a building as one of its essential elements. While some of the most famous of the German universities have done their work for ages with scarcely any thing that could be called a public edifice, our schools are often crippled in their infancy by a gratuitous expenditure in this way of resources which might have been otherwise applied with tenfold profit. This diversity of usage is connected with the preference of small country villages as seats of learning, where the want of public buildings cannot be so easily supplied as in large towns. As to this last question, there is not a little to be said on both sides; but we cannot enter on it here, and have only mentioned it as furnishing a partial explanation of the difference between American and European usage as to the relative importance and priority of brick and mortar in the creation of a school of learning. It is not yet fifteen years since the only academical structure belonging to the University of Halle was its Library, while all its lectures were delivered either in a large room of the old city weigh-house, or in hired apartments scattered through the town, and some of them inferior to a decent English or American kitchen. Now, indeed, there is a public edifice both there and in other places where they have been wanting; but the long delay in their erection has, no doubt, made it possible to provide for wants which could only have been made known by experience. In America, on the contrary, there are probably few cases where a false economy or want of taste in the original erection of such buildings has not prompted the wish that it had been reserved for a later generation.

We have already dwelt too long, however, on a topic which was only introduced at first, as serving to illustrate the remarkable uniformity of method in the institution of our public seminaries. The same poverty of invention is here visible as in the naming of our towns and counties, where, with few exceptions, the incessant repetition of the same familiar names presents a striking contrast with the endless variety which meets the eye on the first glance at a map of the old world. In both cases this perpetual repetition has its origin in early and exclusive associations. To the great mass even of educated men among us, the only idea of a university or college is that of their Alma Mater, or at most of one or two establishments, so much alike as to confirm rather than correct the prejudice, that what exists in these, perhaps from causes wholly accidental, could not have been otherwise without a change in the very essence of the institution. There are few graduates of our colleges who have ever looked so far into the history of academical institutions in general, as to regard

our own established type as only one variety of an extensive and a highly varied genus. This may be ascertained by suggesting to any number of such men successively, the idea of a college without a Board of Trustees or Corporation distinct from the Faculty or resident instructors; or without the usual division into classes; or with any number of such classes except four; or with any names but those of Senior, Junior, Sophomore, and Freshman. We are not now objecting to these long-established and familiar regulations, which, because they are such, if for no higher reason, are entitled to take precedence of all gratuitous innovations. We are only furnishing the reader with a test, by which to satisfy himself that these conventional arrangements are regarded by the multitude of those who have been educated under them, not only as expedient and desirable, but as entering essentially into their very definition of a college or a university. We question whether there are not some of the class described, who would regard as a serious departure from established and tried usage the exchange of the title President for that of Principal as in Canonsburg, or Provost as in Philadelphia; much more the total abrogation of the office, as in Charlottesville.

This blind attachment to our own familiar usages, with all its good conservative effects, may be pernicious, by preventing changes which are really required by local circumstances, and still more extensively by perpetuating rigid uniformity in a matter where, above most others, flexibility and the power of varied adaptation are essential to the full attainment of the end designed. This is emphatically true of our own country, where variety in unessential modes of education seems as necessary as substantial uniformity. It is therefore greatly to be wished that nothing in the habits or the feelings of our educated men should throw any insurmountable difficulty in the way of such variations, where they are really desirable. Against mere wanton innovation the prejudice of early habit and association will at all times furnish a sufficient safeguard. Believing, as we do, that in this, as in many other cases, the best remedy for such prepossessions is historical information, we regard with satisfaction every opportunity of gaining or diffusing knowledge with respect to other systems.

therefore take occasion, from the work now before us, to bring before our readers the principal academical systems of the old world. What we have in view is not statistical details, but those characteristic features which distinguish the systems from each other.

The prevailing type of academical organization in America may readily be traced to the first few colleges established, and especially to Harvard University, Yale College, and the Col

lege of New Jersey. William and Mary College, though the second in the order of time, appears to have been wholly without influence in this respect, perhaps because entirely peculiar in its constitution from the very first. The other three, with some variations as to form, present essentially the same organization, which is that of an English college, on a modest scale, and modified to suit the circumstances of the country. The system thus introduced among us, and so widely extended since, is, therefore, the English system, as distinguished from the German. To these two forms may be reduced nearly all the existing varieties of academical organization. They may, therefore, not improperly be made the subject of our further inquiries; the rather as their distinctive features are so strongly marked as to be easily exhibited in contrast.

It is highly important to observe, however, that these systems, now so unlike, and, indeed, so opposite, can be traced to a common origin. The mother university of Europe was the old University of Paris, an institution altogether different from the modern University of France. In the early history of the former, may be traced the organic changes, which, by being pushed to an extreme, have since resulted in the systems designated as the English and the German. By going back to this remote stage of the formative process, we can most effectually ascertain what is common to both, as well as what is characteristic of either.

The old University of Paris, and the others modelled on it at an early period, were extremely simple in their constitution. The only two essential elements were a body of teachers and a body of learners. Degrees, classes, offices, and buildings, were accidents of later origin. In the first universities, the idea seems to have been, that all should teach who could, and all should learn who would, and as they would. Hence the vast concourse both of teachers and learners in the middle ages, at Paris, Oxford, and Bologna, and other celebrated seats of learning. As the institutions acquired permanence and authority, it became necessary to restrict the right of teaching, by prescribing certain qualifications. This was the origin of degrees, which originally had exclusive reference to the actual functions of a teacher, a design which may still be traced in the titles of Doctor and Magister. Another change which could not fail to be found necessary soon, was a more systematic reference to the training of young men for particular professions. Hence arose the division into Faculties. All these arrangements have been permanent and common to all systems; being equally the groundwork of the English and German organizations. In its most mature form, then, a university may be described as necessarily including a body of