writes as if it were "secular colleges," (like the Michigan University and Cornell College,) to which we object. It is not, however, to the secularity of any college, but to the anti-Christianity seeking (vainly, we trust, in regard to the former) to get possession of them. Secular colleges, in the sense of non-denominational, where the various sections of Christianity unite, pervaded by a common religion, are to us matters of warm interest. Such an one we have had in past times at Ann Arbor, and in spite of some spots of ill omen (among which this dubious patronage by the Independent is, perhaps, one) we shall in future have. But when the so-called. "secular colleges" become strongholds of irreligion, we shall assert and use our right to do two things. We shall utter a very distinct pronunciation of the fact; and we shall withhold our children from the teachings of its professors. What does our talented Editor propose to do about it?

Not only does not irreligion build colleges, but, in all ages, such has been the affinity of mental development with religion, that piety has been the founder and the priest has been the educator. The cause lies in the fact that true intellectual culture and religion are alike an aspiration and an ascent of man's higher faculties toward the Divine. It was religious faith, not unfaith, that founded the Universities of Continental Europe in the Middle Ages, and of Cambridge and Oxford in England. In America, Harvard and Yale were established by the earnest efforts of Christian ministers and laymen, whose first anxieties were to secure thereby a godly ministry, and a cultured intellectual aristocracy, for New England's future. One of the first cares of the first founders of Methodism in America was to found Cokesbury College. When that was twice burnt down, humbled Methodism, despised by the collegiate caste of the day, grew discouraged, and, in her less informed ranks, opposed to the highest educational institutes. When the era for their establishment came, our people were largely distrustful lest colleges should become the enemies of a true and simple piety. And what was it that dissipated that distrust and created a unanimity in our Church in behalf of academies and colleges? It was, as we well recollect, personally, the sweeping revivals that took place within their walls. The Methodist opposer of lofty "book learning" was utterly disintegrated when he found that the seminary was the place to get his ungodly children converted. A true Christian university, under the patronage and tuition of highly cultured Christian men, forming a little model Christian republic, self-governed through the power of Christian influence, where our sons and daughters are trained to the highest style of Christian

manhood and womanhood, has become with Methodism a controlling ideal. It has become a part of her programme of molding the world to that same ideal. Of that other sort of university, which this movement is laboring, unconsciously, perhaps, to introduce, where the infidel sneer curls the savant's lips, and the blatant blasphemy is the pupil's response; where the revival is a jest and prayer is unheard; where the Sabbath is a carouse and the only Church is a club of Atheism; where the soul is materialized, and a brutifying science debases its followers into a practical bestiality, her abhorrence is profound, and, we trust in God, will never diminish.

The Editor of the Independent indicates his purpose of returning to the subject again. We doubt not that his farther treating it in just that style will do unintentional good. There is an alarm already arising in our Christian community-it is beginning to stir the heart of Methodism-at the efforts to heathenize our colleges, and every such editorial will deepen the alarm and quicken the efforts of the friends of truly Christian universities. Our "secular colleges" may, we hope not all, fall under infidel corporations and faculties; but our Richs, Claflins, and Judds will be multiplied by scores, and our Christian universities will find a new and better era in their history.

Against this antichristian movement Mr. Judd has here presented a monumental argument. It presents the noble results of one feeble Christian college. It is a history we flaunt in the face of the pseudo-liberalism of the hour, which, with great swelling and lying words, claims all the philanthropy, and sets that philanthropy in array against religion. Mr. Judd's friends were surprised at the personal outlay he was making upon this work, until his founding a scientific department in his maternal university obliterated their concern by showing that he was not merely a grateful son, but a large-minded benefactor. This benefaction will be the exemplar and parent of similar benefactions to this and others of our denominational universities, and the dawn of a better day for our literary interests. It is, moreover, a timely stroke to indicate that the Wesleyan is not to be abandoned, but to live and prosper. And we hope, too, that it will prove a most impressive suggestion that we need but one New England university upon which fraternally to concentrate our entire and earnest effort, through at least the entire remainder of our present century; and we believe we may truly add, through an entire century to come.

Let not our Boston friends-for some of our dearest and noblest friends are in the secession movement we deprecate-impute any

sectional motive to our frank words; for our earnest plea and protest are in behalf, not of a New York, but of a New England college. By ancestry, by long residence, by cherished sympathies, by type of mind and set of principles, we are entitled to speak as a New Englander. And we say that, to divide the strength of New England Methodism upon two universities, for at least a century to come, is to destroy her educational position. Instead of one commanding empyrian strength, she will have two weaknesses; instead of one glory, two shames. We are aware that it is proposed, generously, to donate one of the two to New York; but if New England chooses to desert her New England college, what right or reason has she to claim or suppose that New York will not also retire into her own shell, and have her own nice little pocket college too? And so we may have three shames instead of two. A large share of our own sons will decline to enter either of these small concerns; nor will there be a single Eastern Methodist college able to confer a first-class diploma. Nor are we in the slightest degree fascinated by that showy ciphering that finds such a vast treasury in the pockets of our laity that we can build a catalogue of New England colleges. For, while that ciphering is going on, our missions are shuddering at the prospect of defalcation and reduction; our Extension Society is crying out that the golden hour is being lost for want of a little gold; our colleges are discrediting the Church by starving their Professors and driving our most ambitious students to better-endowed and betterfurnished colleges of other denominations; while our academies and seminaries, even in New England, are struggling for existence. If, indeed, we ministers are distributers for an immense fund in the lay pockets, let us conscientiously husband the gold-mountain and divide it off wisely. And that wise husbanding says, that one noble university for New York and New England is all they can support without injustice to the other departments of Church enterprise.

To our seceding Boston friends we must also say, "Brethren, you are breaking a wisely-formed, time-honored compact." From personal knowledge we affirm that it was the wish, successively, of that line of great men, Wilbur Fisk, Nathan Bangs, and Stephen Olin, to establish a theological department at the University. "No," said the Massachusetts brethren; "you have the University, we must have the seminary." In compliance with that compact the Wesleyan has never established a theological department. Boston now, by claiming both, exonerates Middletown from her abstinence, Boston cannot argue that New England needs not two seminaries;

for New York then replies that, equally, she needs not two universities. If Boston undertakes to erect both in her own limits, she is bound, in justice to herself, to expend her entire resources in sustaining them respectably, and can in future bestow no such patronage upon the Wesleyan as-after the demise of two or three memorable benefactors-will justly entitle her to any veto power. It fairly and honorably will rest with Connecticut or New York to establish, as can be done and at comparatively small cost, a Theological Department at Middletown. This result we earnestly deprecate, but fear that the influence of the Boston enterprise has already awakened the purpose too decidedly for its possible prevention. Our earnest wish, for which we now write, is, that the old compact should be renewed; that Boston should erect her noble Seminary, and that Boston and New York should join hand and heart in bringing to a splendid completion our one compromise University, at that fortunate middle-point cut by the air-line which connects the two great cities.

Rameses the Great; or, Egypt 3300 Years Ago. Translated from the French of F. DE LANOYE. With Thirty-nine Wood-cuts by Lancelot, Sellier, & Bayard. Small 12mo., red and gilt. Pp. 296. New York: Scribner & Co. 1870. Egyptology, in this handsome little volume, appears both attractive and orthodox. It is dedicated to "the illustrious master of Egyptian lore, the Vicompte De Rougé," on whose teachings it professes to be largely based. The style is fresh and flowing, and the illustrations give it life and reality. It presents a comparative table of the records of Manetho and the monuments, with suggestive comments by the author. In spite of its over-rhetorical style and somewhat involved periods, and its plentiful allusions that presuppose considerable acquaintance with the subject on the part of the reader, it furnishes the best manual for the tyro that we are able to name.

In ethnology the author believes not so much in races of men," as in "branches of the great family of man." He maintains that "the more the torch of history gains in clearness, the more concise should chronology become, and ancient time approach our own." "To build Memphis, in the company of Menes, 5800 years before our era, upon the filled-up bed of the Nile diverted from its course; to believe piously in the books of anatomy written by Athoth, the son and successor of the first-named dynastic founder; to unreservedly admit the authenticity of the ancestral images carried before the kings at religious ceremonies, and the filiation of the three hundred and forty-five Pi-Roumis mentioned by Herodotus;

to rear the Pyramids of Gizeh in the time of the brothers Supphi or Chouffou, of the fourth dynasty, forty or fifty centuries before Christ; and to put back the origin of the grand hydraulic and architectural monuments of Fayoum fifteen hundred years anterior to Thotmes III., to Seti I., to Rameses Meiamoun; to cause the conquest of Asia, two thousand five hundred years before the Saviour, by an Osmyandias and a Sesourtasen, personages of whom the heroes of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties would be merely feeble imitators-all this was, for a long time in France, and is still in Germany, a source of pleasure even to grave adepts in science, that it would be perilous to disturb by calm discussion."

Dr. Thompson, in his "Genesis and Geology," refers to the fact that the Table of Abydos exhibits Sethos Second as paying homage to seventy-six ancestors as decisive demonstration that our common chronology must be lengthened. Dr. Hackett, in his notes to Smith's Biblical Dictionary, gives the same emphasis. Lanoye acutely replies: "At Rome, also, in many public and private ceremonies, there were exhibited along with the images of ancestors those of the gods to which the Roman patricians pretended to trace their origin. But have modern historians ever come to the conclusion, from the presence of the images of Mars and Venus at the funeral rites of Julius or Martius, that those fetiches of the primitive clans of Latium ever had a real personal existence? Assuredly not. Yet this is what Egyptian investigators do in our day, in regard to Menes and many mythical personages of ancient Egypt." Lanoye still further replies that the list of the Table of Abydos is contradicted by other lists, showing, in fact, that down to a certain epoch the sacerdotal editors made out lists of kings according to their own choice. "This epoch was the commencement of the famous 12th dynasty of the Sesortasens and the Amenemhas. In ascending from Rameses II. to Amenemha I., (from the nineteenth to the 12th inclusive,) every thing is clear, every thing follows in the same order on the different documents; but, in taking the last named king for the point of departure, all becomes doubt and confusion excepting at the epoch, comparatively free from clouds and mists, of the Pharaohs who built the great pyramids. Hence we may conclude that the learned copyists and scribes of the colleges at Thebes and Memphis composed, in the fourteenth century preceding the Christian era, a history of Egypt in which the whole period anterior to the 12th dynasty is but a tissue of fables, legends, and traditions toned down to the historic form-something like the history of England written in the ninth and tenth centuries by