the Republican party. "If there be any hope," said Lowell, in his now celebrated address on "The Independent in Politics," "it is in getting independent thinkers to be independent voters." His service in this direction led Curtis to speak of him as the typical independent, with power "to speak with more authority than any living American for the intellect and conscience of America."

As a result of the work of such leaders, a strong civic conscience was awakened among the college men, and colleges and universities have been brought into more vital contact with the political life of the country. President Eliot, of Harvard, is crowning a life of singular success with discussions of political and social questions that reach a larger audience than the words of any other private citizen, except, perhaps, ex-President Cleveland. President Butler, of Columbia, like his predecessor, Seth Low, has been actively identified with politics in New York city. The national government has relied more and more upon expert students of economic questions in various colleges.

In the spirit of such men-and stimulated by the success of the independent movement elsewhere-the Southern scholar will find his place in the political life of his section. Southern colleges will be a more vital factor in Southern life. A moral purpose will multiply their power by ten. The platform on which they will stand will be the memorable words of Emerson: "Is it not the chief disgrace in the world, not to be an unit;-not to be reckoned one character;but to be reckoned in the gross, in the hundred, or the thousand, of the party, the section, to which we belong; and our opinion predicted geographically, as the north, as the south. We will walk on our own feet; we will work with our own hands; we will speak our own minds. The study of letters shall be no longer a name for pity, for doubt and for sensual indulgence."

The Denominational College in Southern

Education

BY HENRY NELSON SNYDER,

President of Wofford College, S. C.

The motive behind the foundation of the earlier denominational colleges in the South, as in other parts of the United States, was the demand for an educated ministry. However, colleges founded to train ministers, not only in the special doctrines of their respective churches, but also in general culture as well, in the course of time naturally drew upon a wider patronage by inviting all the youth of the church. For the same argument for training the ministry within the fold of the church for the church could be easily pressed to include the youth of the church. Still, while thus widening the circle of their influence, the primary purpose of these first colleges was the training of the ministry.

Next came two forces which had an indirect yet strong influence in the establishment of new colleges: these were the growth of a national and state sentiment and an equally vigorous and assertive growth toward religious freedom, and these two went far toward preparing the way for state universities and colleges, and even suggested a great central national university, which, alas! yet waits realization. Moreover, as the public school idea laid hold upon the thought of the people, it seemed wholly logical to crown the newly formed system with a college or university to complete the service of the state to its citizenship. Now this large activity on the part of the state, instead of satisfying the demands for higher education and decreasing the number of institutions of private foundation, served rather to stimulate the denominations to a new zeal in the multiplying of colleges. This zeal had now behind it, not the more limited motive of the education of the ministry, but the broader one of the education of all the youth of the church under strict denominational influence. The inauguration of the University of Virginia, for example, with its absolute religious freedom looked to the churches more

like a complete absence of religion. The fear seized them that religion was to be left entirely out of education, and that the youth of the land were to be given over to godlessness. This fear was further made real by the presence of strong men in certain faculties, if not hostile to Christianity, at least antagonistic to every form of denominationalism. As a matter of protection, therefore, the churches felt it incumbent on themselves to provide instruction for their youth. Faith was once more at stake, they thought, and the youth of the land must be saved from infidelity and the vices which were supposed to follow as a matter of course. This represents the second stage in the causes leading to the multiplying of colleges at the South.

It should be noted that this attitude of the denominations toward state colleges and universities had the use of partly purging the latter of anti-christian influences. While they might not teach definite religious doctrines, their presidents and faculties, though representing every and any form of religious belief, must be at least christian in a general way, and in a special way must care for the moral training of those committed to them. But aside from this influence, the desire and purpose of the church to safeguard its youth in matters of faith, because they believed that faith was really threatened, is no doubt the dominant impulse in the establishing of colleges from, say, 1825 to 1860, and it gave to us our oldest and perhaps our most reputable denominational institutions.

After this time another view served to call other institutions into existence, and to strengthen the faith of the church in those already established. This view was based upon the conception that, after all, character was the chief thing in life, and therefore should be the dominant aim of education; that, further, the finest type of character was the product of definite christian teaching; that the heart of the whole matter in education was a frank, unhesitating acceptance of Christ, his truth, and his spirit; that, in the nature of things, the individual church was the only kind of institution that could hope to realize this ideal in practice. It was held and urged that colleges of the state and those of private foundation asking

a patronage regardless of denominational affiliation could not, from the very fact that they had in their faculties and student bodies men representing every form of religious belief and perhaps of unbelief, meet the requirements necessary to train and fortify youth in the highest and most enduring type of character. If this was to be the best and final product of education, the denominations must make it possible through their schools. Other kinds of institutions could not do it. Of course in the light of the new times into which we have come, when practically all the forces of education are striving to put an ideal of character-building at the heart of their work, these statements with reference to the attitude of the churches sound a bit like a far-fetched page of ancient history and a call to memory of the clamorous contentions from an old educational battle-ground. It is not to say that the churches were right in affirming that the colleges of the state were powerless to furnish such training as would thoroughly moralize their instruction and set before students the supreme christian ideal of character. It is to say, however, that this is the way the churches looked at the matter, and this attitude furnished therefore yet another strong motive for the maintenance of denominational colleges and the founding of new ones.

It is clear, moreover, that the question has shifted somewhat. It is leading away from the original purpose of an educated ministry and specific instruction in the dogmas of individual creeds into the larger matter of what is the best method of getting the christian spirit and christian ideals of character into education. We may all differ as to whether the church has found the best method of accomplishing this end, or as to really what is the best method. But all probably agree that at least the purpose of the church was in the right direction, and now, since we have a perspective almost removed from the heat and din and confusion of some rather unseemly educational conflicts and have arrived at a position where we are virtually unanimous in the thought that the function of the college is to train not only for practical efficiency, but also to develop and fortify the religious nature and shape the characters of men according to christian ideals, we can grant to the church its inestimable benefit in holding

us more or less steadily to this position when we might have gone far astray in our zeal to be unreligious in the quality of our instruction. Against this unreligion in education the church has protested loudly and unceasingly, and its institutions have been the concrete witnesses in the affirmation of its educational faith. And their contribution in this respect has been a great and important contribution to our entire system of education at the South, particularly to higher education. Through it we dare not now leave religious considerations out of any phase of our educational scheme. Moreover, I do not feel that I am overstating the case when I say that we not only owe this, at least in part, to the denominational college, but also that we are in a better condition to meet that latest demand of the best educational thought, which takes as the fundamental article of its creed that we may count all else as loss if character be not the final product of all our schemes, all our systems, all our methods of education.

As is well known, these dominant causes were strong enough so to dot the South with colleges that one might in truth say that this is a college-ridden section. They are of every conceivable sort as to property, equipment, resources, and faculties. To get something like an adequate idea of them we shall have to depend upon the report of the United States Commissioner of Education for 1903. Yet we should say that some qualifications are necessary in using data from this source. It is two years old to start with, and much substantial progress has been made in this time; some reports go as far back as 1901; and some institutions are not reported at all. Moreover, as one examines this report, as invaluable as it is, one finds enough inaccuracies to raise a feeling of distrust as to its facts and figures. However, with due allowance, one can get from it a fairly adequate notion of the situation of denominational institutions in relation to certain aspects of education at the South. It should be said also that no effort will be made properly to classify these institutions. While many of them no doubt deserve no higher rating than that of secondary schools, yet they will be accepted at their own valuation in this discussion.

While