For it is well worth while in this connection to call attention again to the position of the best scholarship toward the question of Sacred Scripture. The question as to what this position really is, is often pronounced upon as though it were a question of epithets. It is purely a question of fact. The conservative and pious Oehler may be considered as just within the lines which this scholarship considers it desirable to try to defend. A very large body of men whom the Christian Church will never unchurch, have already retreated very much further in toward the central defences. Will these defences be best guarded by the irregulars who are firing far short of the advancing enemy from worn-out fusils and flint-lock muskets? The very course of these irregulars shows that they are uneasy in the consciousness of their defenceless position. Why otherwise do they appeal with such shouts of welcome to the "German" scholars, when they think to derive help from them, and then sneer at everything "Teutonic," when they find these scholars cannot be drilled in their company, or made to fight with their antiquated weapons. Why are Oehler, and Dillmann, and Strack, and Delitzsch, and Riehm, quoted as authorities against Graf and Wellhausen, and then abused under the breath when it is found that they have all abandoned the traditional views of the Jewish Synagogue, and the views of the post-Reformation theologians? Why are Weiss, and Meyer, and Tholuck, and Bleek, treated to sugar plums with one hand and threatened with the rod with the other hand? Is it because those who praise and blame, alike ignorantly, cannot always reach the real views of these conservative critics, since the originals are to them sealed books? Or is it because newspaper critics in general cannot be expected to wait even to read the translations of these German masters of criticism? It is further to be noted that Oehler plainly did not accept certain alternatives which are current among us. We are, deed, being treated just now to a number of most amazing alternatives. Among such alternatives are the following: Either the synagogue tradition of the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch or else the vagaries of Graf and Wellhausen ; either the affirmation that the sacred books are alike and throughout infallible or else the surrender of all confidence in in their authority; either the complete identification of Proverbs, and Canticles, and Esther with the Word of God in the strictest sense, or else the denial of the existence of any Word of God; in fine, either the post-Reformation dogma as we hold it in direct succession from its eminent advocates of the seventeenth century, or else the acceptance of the modern naturalism and agnosticism. I will venture to put these alternatives, and others like them, into one final form which shall represent the substance of them all; either the spirit of Calovius, whose daily prayer is said to have been-Imple me, deus, odio haereticorum, or else the spirit of Thomas Paine; either the views of ancient Jewish Rabbis and their modern representatives, or else the views of Strauss and Renan. But who gave these wise men in the midst of us their right to impose upon their brethren such amazing alternatives? And who, that knows the case, will for a moment submit to such an imposition? - In view of the position and manners of those to whom allusion has just been made, we hail with pleasure the dissemination of works like that of Oehler. We heartily desire that translations of similar German works, as they have been given to the English-reading public by the houses of T. and T. Clark, of Edinburgh, of the Scribners, of New York, and by other publishing houses in England and in this country, should have the widest possible circulation. The circulation of such books will help to bring forward the cause of truth and of liberty. Nor can we refrain from expressing our pleasure at the fact that Oehler's "Old Testament Theology" has already been introduced as a text-book in the Seminaries of Yale and of Princeton. We shall take a great interest in noting how the positions of Oehler, as we have truly stated them in his own words, are made to conform with, or to modify, the teaching in systematic theology which is given in this latter Seminary. ARTICLE VI.-THE SOCIETY SYSTEM OF YALE COLLEGE. "Zeal for the public good is the characteristic of a man of honor, and a gentleman, and must take place of pleasures, profits, and all other private gratifications. Whoever wants this motive is an open enemy, or an inglorious neuter to mankind, in proportion to the misapplied advantages with which nature and fortune have blessed him." Of late years the secret society system of Yale College has been challenged with increasing frequency. In 1875 the Sophomore societies were abolished by the faculty; in 1876 an organized band of students broke into and claimed to have rifled one of the Senior Society halls. This unprecedented vandalism was continued, in 1878, by another set of collegiate marauders defacing with paint both Senior buildings. The offenders were tried in the City Court, but escaped free of fine or imprisonment, through technicalities, much to the disappointment of some of the most prominent citizens and best legal talent in New Haven. During this year a daily anti-Senior Society newspaper was started and vigorously conducted so as to thwart the society men in every way. Soon afterwards the Freshmen Societies ceased to exist, by order of the fates which control the destinies of the University-and the marking-books! Following this period of unrest came an elaborate pamphlet from a man who had belonged to the societies of each year, from first to last, who sought to prove that the whole system was pernicious and should be abolished. Lastly, this year, the crusade against the societies was transferred to the columns of prominent metropolitan journals, where alumnus and undergraduate emulated each other in striving to point out enormities committed by the societies. To deny that such a retrospect is in the highest degree unsatisfactory would be insincere; for there are many first class colleges possessing a greater number of societies than Yale, at which the utmost good feeling prevails on this subject, among the faculty and the students themselves. Whether the Yale Societies are guilty or not of the charges made against them is not the first question in order. The very fact that almost every year the students are more or less divided on this score, that twice within the past ten years the faculty have thought necessary to exercise their rarely used prerogative of suppressing time-honored student customs-the Freshmen and the Sophomore Societies-augurs that germs of further dissension may exist fatal to that harmony which is indispensable to the greatest usefulness of the University. Silence has always been the policy of the societies when assailed, however unjustly, because they have realized that to do justice to their cause they would have to reveal much which, even though highly commendable in itself, rightly concerned no men excepting their members. The Societies have never yet, even with a mob at their doors, been forced to capitulate or offer explanations to their assailants, and it is extremely improbable that they ever will condescend to do so. But when the controversy concerning them is taken from the college arena and the reading public is invoked to act as judge, when the good name of the University is dragged through the mire by her own sons, and the faculty and the corporation directly appealed to, "to right a crying evil," we believe the usual conditions of "society etiquette" to be altered that plain words, between man and man, are best; that reformers should be held to prove their damaging charges, or silenced with the deserved contempt which awaits men who have not hesitated, intentionally, or unintentionally to compromise the innocent. The time for delay, for allowing things to "adjust" themselves would appear to have passed. The charges against the societies themselves and against the management of the College for allowing them to exist, have been formally presented; and now, in common justice, the condemnation of the body of the alumni should be centered against the societies on their demerits, or in case no valid objections can be raised against their existence, they should frankly be bidden to go their way unmolested, without the constant reproach that the advantages which they offer are selfish ad vantages, for a few, obtained at the expense of the many. A mere attempt at friendly discussion will often go far toward the settlement of a serious difficulty, unless the parties are hopelessly estranged. Surely no society abolitionist, however radical, will claim that the body of society men and the body of "neutrals" are hopelessly estranged from each other or from their college. Perhaps, too, a simple statement of the points at issue and of the principles which underlie them, will disclose the remedy for any evils which may chance to cause this "misunderstanding"-if that word is strong enough to explain "why graduates of Yale have boasted that they dissuade young men from joining their Alma Mater and that they will never give of their own means to her so long as the present society system exists." A Few simple things have been more misstated and misunderstood, than this same system. It dates from 1832. In that year a Senior Society of fifteen men was established. second Senior Society followed in 1842. The first Junior Society was founded in 1836; a second in 1838; the third in 1844. They each took about twenty men from a class. The first Sophomore Society-a relic of "Bully Club" days-was acknowledged to the public in 1838; a second dates from 1846. On the death of these, two more Sophomore Societies were established, in 1864. Their membership was larger than that of the Junior Societies. One Freshman Society saw the light in 1840; a second in 1845; a third in 1855. They included virtually the whole Freshman class. The very rapid succession of these societies-no less than nine within fifteen years-indicates that there was a positive need of their existence. The opportunities for literary and social culture afforded by the College were then far fewer than now. Textual instruction in belles-lettres was furnished by one Professor. The library facilities were comparatively small. The College press was not yet in existence. The old College dormitories were too sinall and uncomfortable to allow any considerable gathering of undergraduates in one room for purposes of relaxation and culture. The houses of public entertainment in the neighborhood of the College were ordinary hotels or saloons, unattractive in appearance, or perhaps of disreputable character. An |