gone together heretofore, but the possibility has been trusted and verified so often that at last it has assumed the guise of a real being, an entity apart from and independent of me; and now the ideas of the group never rise without suggesting, instead of the sensations themselves, certain correspondent phenomena belonging to a reality of their own. I look upon the paper-weight as having existed before I knew it and as likely to exist when I am no more. So upon the natural organization brought by the association of ideas there is superposed an artificial and illusory one which has quite usurped the place of the other and appropriated all consciousness to itself. On the one hand, along with the entire aggregate of my sensations and my ideas of actual sensations in the past and possible sensations in the future I receive what seems to be the direct intuition of an enduring unchanging substance, or soul within, constituting my real self, from which they issue as its momentary manifestations, about which they gather as its apparelling and decoration. On the other, along with each particular group of these sensations and ideas I receive what seems to be the intuition of another substance which is not myself. One set of sensations and ideas, which tend to present themselves in advance of all others and which thus suggest possibilities of sensation which are the antecedents or conditions of all other possibilities, detaches itself to become the marvellous apparition known as the organism of the body. Around this illusory projection into unreal space are distributed the rarer and remoter possibilities which appear as the furniture and walls of the room in which I am sitting; farther away are the appearances of objects out of doors; encompassing all the illuminated atmosphere bounded by the blue dome of the sky. This whole environment of the material universe widening out forever into illimitable space is nothing but my sensa tions and ideas which the laws of association have thrown into magnificent but unreal perspectives; the play of its forces near and far, minute or mighty, from the hypothetical collisions of atoms up to the impressive flight of planets round their suns and systems round their centres, is but the orderly vicissitudes of my sensations, what I feel now and what I expect to feel by virtue of having felt before. There may be, as will appear

farther on, I have good reasons for believing that there are, other consciousnesses like my own, each lighted by the reflex splendors of its own projections; but their sensations, and consequently their permanent possibilities of sensation, however coincident with mine are not identical with them and so cannot guarantee an objective reality common to us all and which survives when we cease to be. No two of us ever trod the same soil or saw the same sun. awaits me when I open my eyes, and which I know awaits me, collapses when I close them and passes away forever when I die.*

The apocalypse which

Such is the solitary essay of perhaps the greatest critic of our times in metaphysical construction. Whatever its defects it is a distinctly original contribution to philosophy and as such was surely entitled to introduction in some more ample and dignified form than could be given to any device for getting the better of Sir William Hamilton. We repeat that it is a lasting misfortune that Mr. Mill did not give more of the power spent in the exposure of other systems to the exposition. of his own. Had he done so he might have left a work great enough to rank with the New Theory of Vision and the Recherche de la Verité; and frank enough to make criticism surperfluous.

* To complete the exposition it is to be remarked that the order of succession or antecedence and consequence expressed in the third law has provided the intuition of Time, and the constancy of the order the intuition of Force or Cause; as the order of co-existence expressed in the second law provides the intuition of Space and its constancy that of Substance. Having ascertained the general fact of succession we think events as occurring in time, and time we think as having an absolute existence independent of the whole series of events. Having ascertained the constant order of succession we think all antecedents as necessitating or causing their invariable consequents-the succession always having been cannot, we fancy, but be. Another important point to notice is that the constant succession is not often between single sensations, but almost always between groups or permanent possibilities of sensation, so that the conception of force or cause comes to be referred to the conception of substance which stands for the permanent possibility of sensation. In this way substance once admitted gains in apparent reality; we think it not only as holding together the phenomena grouped as in its own modifications but as causing the modifications which follow in other groups. Substances become the sources of all actions and changes in the universe.

ARTICLE IV.-THE SOURCE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION -POPULAR AND RELIGIOUS.

As long as the establishment of colleges by the State was regarded by their special promoters as but one of two or three American methods of sustaining the higher education-such colleges asking simply to be recognized by the side of established religious ones, denominational and undenominationalit was admitted that college education in this country was originally due to private benevolence. Our oldest colleges were prized and honored as the offspring of voluntary Christian enterprise. State universities were looked upon as a recent experiment. But along with the theory of higher education by the State exclusively has arisen the notion that this was the old Puritan theory of New England! and that her colleges were from the first State institutions! This new reading of the facts has its interest as a question of history simply: it has still greater interest as a blended question of history and public polity. The claim quietly made in the exclusive interest of State universities has attracted no attention; those best conversant with the facts have apparently deemed it of no consequence; it is quite likely to be quoted, not without additions, as if it had been proven, or possessed a firm historical foundation, -until from reiteration the truth of history is quite reversed. It is proposed in this paper to examine the facts, and discover whether they warrant the new reading.

* After the materials of this Article were collected, the Report of the U. S. Com. of Education for 1875 came to hand, containing, opposite p. cxliv, a "Synopsis of the proposed centennial history of American education-1776-1876," in which the century is divided into three periods, "the colonial period," "the homogeneous period-1776-1840," and "the heterogeneous period-1840-1876." Under the third period are placed "the rise of State universities, and of colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts; rise of colleges for women," etc. Under the first period are placed "early colonial colleges, their foundation by colonial and individual action. . . . connection of religious denominations with the colleges, etc." A correct historical distinction is here recognized, without apparent complication with any late-born theories about the proper basis and management of college education. But on p. xxiii "the introduction of State colleges or universities" is

Three sentences from an article in the North American Review for October, 1875, will give the new claim in its most moderate form. The writer is an instructor in one of the State universities, Professor Charles Kendall Adams of Michigan.

"An important change has taken place in public opinion concerning the manner in which our colleges and universities ought to be supported." "The fact is obvious that throughout the country the opinion prevails to a great extent that our colleges and universities, and even our academies, ought to be supported largely, if not indeed exclusively, not at the expense of the public, but by private munificence." There is no question that this is the opinion, nor that in many quarters it is growing; the only question is whether this or the opposite opinion is the recent one. "The present method of supporting our colleges and universities," adds Prof. Adams, "is quite at variance with that pursued in the early history of the country," "up to the time of the Revolution."*

Now, up to that time eleven colleges had been founded in this country, viz: Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, New Jersey, Pennsylvania (U.), Washington (and Lee), Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, Rutgers, and Hampden Sidney. The first of these dates, according to its own catalogue and the United States Commissioner of Education + from 1638; the last from 1775. Professor Adams, however, does not attempt to make noted as a new thing, yet is also asserted in the same sentence to be "only a return to the method adopted by Massachusetts in the establishment of Harvard." Here the new claim for State universities seems to have crept in, and it is difficult to reconcile it with itself, or with the Synopsis, or with the statement on p. xviii, that in "the establishment of Harvard . . . the element of private benefactions appeared." It is hardly necessary to say that this element does not appear in State university foundations.

*The questions of origin and control are blended with that of support in the Article here quoted, and also the questions of secondary and primary education. This paper will therefore cover the whole ground of public and private historical basis for the three. It will be noticed that the names "college" and "university" are used in the quotations as synonymes, and though they are not such, in their proper and historic meaning, yet as many institutions in this country bearing the one name are precisely like others bearing the other, and as so many bearing the more pretentious title are inferior to some bearing the more modest one, no attempt will here be made to maintain a distinction between them.

Report for 1875, pp. xx, 721. Cf. p. 451 of this Article. It was not Massachusetts that acted in 1638, but John Harvard.

out his point by any facts save in respect to the first three; contenting himself for the remaining colleges, with the assertion, "the methods of support which we have seen to prevail at Harvard, William and Mary, and Yale, were in no respect exceptional." If his claim then in respect to these three falls to the ground, it confessedly does so in respect to the rest.

The "Centennial" Article in the succeeding number of the North American, January, 1876, on "Education in America, 1776-1876,"* throws out William and Mary, as a "denominational" college. The writer says: "When the sectarian or denominational colleges plead the example of the nine (other?) pre-revolutionary institutions as favorable to this plan of organization, the advocates of State universities point to Harvard and Yale Colleges, which were aided and controlled in all their earlier years by the colonial legislatures."

This narrows the issue before us to two of the eleven. "William and Mary," says President Gilman, "was emphatically a child of the Church of England." Even Prof. Adams admits that it "was an establishment purely of the Church of England;" but he also maintains that it had a State parentage, and was born of the bounty of the crown and the colonial assembly, instancing the grants of the monarchs whose names it bears as the true fons et origo of its existence. The facts have been since given in Scribner's Monthly (Nov., 1875), and are clearly these: Some thirty years before the foundation, the Virginia burgesses attempted just such a State institution for the benefit of "the Church of England by Law Established" as William and Mary is imagined to

*By President D. C. Gilman, of the new Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Of five others he says: Princeton was founded by the Presbyterians, and New Brunswick (Rutgers) by the Dutch Reformed; and Kings, or Columbia College, was chiefly, but not exclusively, governed by the Episcopalians; while Rhode Island College (now Brown University), was under the patronage of the Baptists," and Dartmouth was "controlled by Congregationalists." Between Yale (1701) and New Jersey (Princeton, 1746) comes the predecessor of the latter, the "Log College" of Tennent (1726) at Neshaming, Penn. "Just as the Log College expired, the college of New Jersey sprang into existence. The friends and patrons of the former became the principal supporters and trustees of the latter. Thus the Log College was the germ," &c.-Biog. Sketches, by Dr. A. Alexander, 1845. It was never chartered, and never claimed as a State institution, yet the students were not only taught the classics, but studied divinity also."

66