Methodist Church has some "views" on that philosophical subject, it must not be touched in our Schools of Philosophy. What! Shall a subject which gave rise to one of the philosophical sects among the Grecians, which the great English Poet could not pretermit when pen. ning a philosophical "Essay on Man," on which Dr. Day President of Yale College has written a book, which has exercised the powers of the inquiring mind in all ages, and on which such mighty minds as Locke and Edwards, and Kaimes and Leibnitz and Hume have spent their strength, some on one side and some on the other---must such a subject be omitted in a course of lectures on man, his intellectual and moral powers with the modes and laws of their operation, lest perchance something should be said derogatory to the views of some of the different religious sects? Must the rivalry of the different sects forbid to those who are preparing themselves in our Colleges for the other learned professions, all information on such a subject?

"Derogatory to the views of the Methodists" indeed! Why must it be claimed on behalf of the Methodists, more than any other sect, that nothing must be taught in a public institution derogatory to their views?--It is impossible---and these gentlemen know it---to deliver a full course of lectures on moral philosophy, without making statements subversive of the faith of some sect, let the Professor's own creed be what it may. How, for example, shall a Professor lecture on practical ethics---on the nature of an oath, the duty of prayer, the lawfulness of coercion to enforce obedience to civil law, and many other subjects, without making statements derogatory to the views of Quakers, or of Presbyterians, Methodists &c.

It is presumed that these gentlemen both admit that religious instruction should be given in our Colleges. But are there not a thous and texts in the Bible, on which, it would be impossible to speak five minutes without saying something which would militate against the faith of some sect? We agree that nothing should be taught in a State Institution for the purpose of assailing the faith of any religious denomination; and that a President should have a far higher and nobler aim (where some of Dr. J's accusers would miserably fail) than to advance the interest of his own party. This being understood, then our maxim is, "Be sure you are right, then go ahead." The public, including all sects, must consent that a Professor shall not be accounted an offender, for teaching what he honestly believes to be the truth, or we must expect to see religion, with all its holy and happy influences, banished from our State institutions.

The gentlemen are highly offended with Dr. J. for saying that the

late movement among a portion of the Alumni was effected by a combination---a conspiracy, on the part of some of the leaders. I have no disposition at present to tell all I know on the subject. Something however, I will state, premising that nothing I may say, is meant to apply to the greater portion of the Alumni who assembled at Oxford,

1. I am credibly informed that as far back as the month of July, when the movement was in its forming stage, it was spoken of at a distance precisely as Dr. J. has spoken of it.

2. An Alumnus, in a communication now before me, says: "The plan was well laid and the purpose firmly taken in reference to Dr. Junkin before we came together at Oxford. It was declared on the floor when we met to consult about the matter, that nothing which could now be said or done there, would alter their course in reference to Dr. J."

3. Taking for granted at present, the general correctness of Dr. J's statement in reference to Mr. B. it appears evident that a predisposition on the part of one portion of the Alumni to take part in the opposition to Dr. J. was calculated on.

Having stated these facts, I leave it with the public, to form their own opinions, and give whatever name they think proper, to the action of those Alumni who formed the "well laid plan." It is natural that they should resist the charge of a conspiracy, and I have no wish to fasten it on them.

But, there is on the part of these gentlemen, something like a studied and pertinacious endeavor to place Mr. B. in a disadvantageous light. They say, "his defence excited nothing but merriment"---and "when Mr. B. first made the charge, they laughed at its manifest absurdity. Why all this? The explanation follows:--

Dr. J. had stated that one of these gentlemen had met Mr. B. and said to him: "Mr. B. are you not one of Dr. Bishop's boys? Yes, I graduated under him. Won't you unite with us in our efforts to get Dr. J. removed? &c. &c. Here was an attempt to get up a kind of feeling which I suppose christian charity condemns." Of this statement, they say, he has "carricatured" a conversation of one of us with Mr. B.---that in that conversation "Mr. B. was invited to attend the meeting at Cary's" &c. Now, I have before me the written statement of Mr. B. detailing at length the conversation, and I affirm that Dr. J. has stated the impression which it must make on any intelligent mind, as fully and fairiy as it could be done in few words. And in reference to the meeting at Cary's Mr. B. expressly says: "Whether he informed me that there was about to be another meeting during

the first part of the next month, I will not say positively, but certain I am that he neither invited me to it, nor told me when or where it would be." But for the disposition manifested to expose Mr. B. before the public, this might have been passed over: for such discrepancies often exist where both parties honestly aim at stating their recollections.---I have only to add, that Mr. B. is a young minister belonging to the Associate Reformed Church, who, for moral worth, solid scholarship, and sound judgment is in no degree inferior to either of these geutlemen.

They state: "We are neither of us members of the Alpha Delta Phi Society, and are not called on to defend it. Should the Society consider Dr J's attack as threatening its existence, some member will probably repel it. We will only state that in his recent report, to the Board, the President indulged in a tedious tirade against the society in which he was not supported by the faculty" &c. This passage calls for a remark or two:--

1. I really cannot persuade myself that either of these gentlemen believes, that such a society should be encouraged in a literary institution. If he does, I think few will agree with him; though some may be, and probably are, of opinion that, as it already exists, it is better to let it alone.

2. I have been greatly misinformed if the Society has not been the cause or the occasion of much dissention and difficulty in Miami University; and so fully am I persuaded that it is of dangerous tendency and liable to be abused to purposes of great mischief, that I have no hesitation in saying to any young man who will hearken to me, Have nothing to do with it. But it would require more knowledge on the subject than I possess, or than, as I think, these gentlemen possess, to enable me to say whether Dr. Junkin was or was not justifiable in bringing the matter before the Board as he did.*

*Dr. J. had corresponded with the Presidents of several of the leading Colleges in the U. S. A few extracts from their answers may be of more use than any rash censure on him can possibly be.

Dr. Dey President of Yale College says: "There is reason to apprehend there may be danger to the freedom and independence of our literary institutions from secret and affiliated societies. It is more manifest that they create jealouies and parties among the students." Dr. Young of Centre College says: "I permit no societies to be formed without my sanction; and when they are formed I am a member of all of them. From my knowledge of your Institution I have been led to regard your societies, in the way that they are managed, as amongst the most formidable evils with which you have to

con

3. It is but recently that persons who are hostile to particular members of the faculty, have begun to ransack the papers of the Board in search of materials for newspaper-attacks. Was it never before heard of that a recommendation of a President was not concurred in by a faculty, or approved by a Board of Trustees? What materials of this description might the interested and the unkind often discover and use in their own way, to lessen the influence of a President!

In assigning reasons why Dr. J. was permitted to retain his place they say: "The Board felt kindly toward Dr. J. They had brought him to the institution but little more than three years before; and doubtless some members thought it would be by no means complimentary to their judgment, if they who had so recently invited, should now remove him. A few seemed tenacious of their prerogatives and jealous of interference by the Alumni" &c.

1. The Board felt kindly towards Dr. J., did they? So they should feel; and if some others felt so, perhaps they would not see so many faults in him.

2. Some felt that it would be by no means complimentary to their judgment if they should remove him so soon. Yes! A little pitiful pride made them violate their oaths and neglect their duty to the institution.

3. A few were tenacious of their prerogatives---jealous, &c.

This is making rather too free with the motives of others, for men who are so sensitive with respect to their own.---It is, I verily believe not beyond the capacity of these men to conceive, that the Board might think some caution necessary to exclude an influence from be

tend. They constitute an imperium in imperio that must give

trouble."

Dr. Quincy of Harvard, after stating that he had no knowledge of the existence of the society in the institution under his care till Dr. J. informed him when on inquiry it was found to exist, says: "The secret was probably more severely kept from a certainty, that, if known, it would not be permitted." He then remarks that the discovery "will probably lead to some action here."

Theodore Frelinghuysen Chancellor of the University of N. Y. is opposed to such organizations in toto---hopes Dr. J's present movement will lead to action for their suppression---promises his hearty cooperation.

Dr. Humphreys of Amherst College coincides with President Dey. Dr. McClean of Princeton College---says that "such a society as the Alpha Delta Phi should not be tolerated."

Dr. Brown, President of Jefferson College, "would make short work with them."

7.

ing brought to bear on them, which if encouraged, might one day destroy their freedom of action as the legal and responsible guardians of the institution. Can they not conceive it possible that a prudent Board might hesitate before taking a step, which, in less than one year, might encourage another party to get up an excitement to effect the removal of another President? It is only those who wish to profit by the distractions they create that will laugh at such caution.

I confess I was one of those "few" if they were a few; though for any personal interest I have in the matter, I care nothing about these "prerogatives."+

One or two things may be briefly noticed.

Dr. J. is accused of representing the New School as forming part of the coalition against him. But the term New School is not to be found in his defence. He indeed alleges that some have not forgotten the part he acted in the difficulties of the Presbyterian Church; but the presumption is too violent that this was specially intended for New School men. Are there no Old School men, with New School principles? The discovery of the New School here, and some other things, furnish presumptive evidence that most of the authors of the recent newspaper attacks on Dr. J. acted in concert.

They say: "the memorial and resolutions were presented to the Board by Rev. S. W. McCracken and ourselves, acting as a committee

I find that the Alumni have recently been styled the natural guardians of the institution. The introduction of a new term may give rise to new ideas and new systems.---I am willing to be instructed by those who are learned in the law, but I believe legal Guardians are only appointed in default of natural guardians, or when they have been rendered incompetent to act by some visitation of God. Now, as neither of these can be pretended in the present case---as the Alumni are sufficiently numerous, and the competency of many of them is unquestionable, if they are the natural guardians, it would seem that the Legislature should dissolve the Eoard, and leave the Alumni Association to exercise that guardianship which by nature and of right pertains to them.

Again. Once let the idea be well established that the Alumni are the natural guardians of the institution, a President and faculty whatever objections may exist to them, may, by summoning the natural guardians to their support, long hold their places in opposition to the Board.At least what struggles may long exist between the two classes of guardians!

It is admitted that the cooperation of the Alumni is desirable. By the counsels of many of them a Eoard of Trustees may profit---but all men wish to choose their own counsellors.