The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-04-27
rrerr..r ur rnr,as7l,y IN the United states.


upen the trustees of Columbia College would
not perhaps be worth notice from the press, if
the grounds OF complaint alleged did not them
selves call imperatively for comment. In the
fulhlment of the duties of their Office, the
trustees have just elected professor of chemis
try in the room Of the late Professor Renwick.
There were two candidates for the post the
gentleman who received the appointment, and
a DR.. Wolcott Gibbs, an alumnus of the Col
lege. 1t was natural to expect that DR.. Gibbs
friends would feel somewhat annoyed at his de-
feat though perhaps they would have consult
by submitting quietly to the misfortune. In
stead of anything SO prudent or so becoming, a
crew of partisans of the worsted candidate have
fallen tooth and nail on the College, on the
trustees, and on all concerned in the election,
and revenged their bitter disappointment in
language both unclassical and impolite. All
this perhaps, as we said, would hardly have
been worth noticing-unless it were as fresh
evidence of the fact that scholars like other
men are not proof against rebuffs it not
been for one of the arguments advanced on the
side of the vanquished candidate. His friends
tell us that he is Unitarian, and that it was
on this ground that the trustees refused to ap-
otherwise eminently qualified. His parti-
sans further allege that the College char
ter forbids the enactment of any bylaw or
ordinance excluding any person from any of
the degrees, immunities or privileges of the
college on account of his peculiar tenets in
matters of religion; and that the whole tenor
of the laws of the institution are framed on
basis of universal liberation. Weaving these
two propositions together in syllogistic form,
with more skill than candor or honesty, DR..
Gibbs friends charge upon the trustees an il
fraction Of the charter of the College, and
gross act of intolerance.
OF course it would suffice for the present to
reply that until some evidence is adduced to
show the truth of the assumed grounds on
which the accusation rests, it amounts to no.
thing. The public has no reason whatever to
believe that DR.. Gibbs defeat was due to his
Unitaranism, beyond the bare assertion Of
few spiteful supporters of his. And it will be
time enough for the College to take up the cud-
gels when the charge is made in more tangi-
bic shape, and with more substantial basis.
But if it were true, as DR.. Gibbs friends as
sert, that the trustees of Columbia College had
refused to appoint him solely because he was
Unitarian, the former would still need to
establish some material points before they could
arraign the Board successfully either on
charge of infraction of the law, or on an in
dictment for intolerance. 1t would, for in
stance, be necessary to furnish at least some
presumptive evidence to show that the char
ter can be read in so latitudinarian a sense
as to include infidels among those who were
to participate in its privileges and immu-
mites. We can easily understand how the
trainers of the charter under George ii. de-
sired to admit all the various Christian sects-
Methodists, Baptists, Presby teri
ans &c.-into the college they founded; but we
should like to see some very unequivocal decla-
ration of their intentions before we construed
them as extending the same favors to iniidels,
pagans, atheists or deists If DR.. Gibbs friends
could discover any such declaration, their charge
Of illegality would rest on better foundation
than now supports it.
Another point which they must establish be-
fore than can induce us to listen to their TRADES
is that rejection of DR.. Gibbs on account of his
Unitaranism would have been in itself an in
tolerant act. This, we apprehend, WILDE found
a matter of some difficulty. If DR.. Gibbs had
been re. ected because he was Methodist or an
Episcopalian, or Baptist or even Roman
Catholic, the act would obviously have been in
tolerant but there is wide difference between
these sects and the Unitarians-so wide in truth,
that we can only explain the sympathy felt for
DR.. Gibbs in many quarters on the hypothesis
that the character of Unitarianism is very i'm
perfectly understood among us.
In plain English, a Unitarian is one who does
not believe in the Trinity in the divinity Of
Christ in the inspired character Of the Bible-a
species of infdel known by the generic name of
Deist, as believing in one God, and thus oppos-
cdato Atheists who believe in no God at all
The most eminent Unitarian of past ages was
probably Voltaire, who may be said to have
laid the foundation of Unitarian doctrine in his
philosophical works All Unitarians have not
carried out their doctrines as consistently as Vol
taire most of them have lacked the wit and
the learning which rendered his blasphemies
popular for time. But none of our modern
Unitarians differ materially from the sage of
Ferney in their doctrines. They believe in one
God or creative power; think the Bible an ex-
cellent work, inferior to Shakespeare, but de-
cidedly better than Plato; and class Moses,
Christ, and ST. Paul among the eminent men of
antiquity. In this State they are of recent
growth. For twenty-five years or more, they
lave fourished at Boston and in New England.
Most Of the literary men have become Unita-
rians; many of the clcrgymen have adopted
that faith; and doubters generally, shrinking
from the stigma attached to the name Of deist
or infdel have cloaked their unbelief under the
disingenuous robe of Unitarianism. The church
to which Mr.. Gibbs belongs has been notorious
ly the rcceptacle for New England inide,ity for